The puzzle has been solved

[unstable]

BesslerInterested, this is very very interesting. Thank you so much for sharing it.

[Senax]

From: http://www.sapere.it/sapere/strumenti/s ... zioni.html

traslated by google translator


"In general, for each energy transformation it is possible to calculate the yield of the transformation, which measures in percentage how much of the energy fed into a form has been converted into the desired final form. In the case of spontaneous transformations, the yield is always 100%, while in the case of the induced transformations it depends on the type of instrument used and on the forms of initial and final energy. Among the various forms of energy, the thermal one has an interesting feature: all the other forms of energy can spontaneously transform into thermal energy, but the opposite is not true. Because it is linked to the atomic-molecular stirring motion, thermal energy is the most disordered form of energy, or, as we say, the most degraded."

From what I understood, in theory it would be possible to transform energy without generating heat. A variable portion of the energy converted into another form of energy is converted into heat. This quantity depends on the efficiency of the energy conversion system.
Heat is the unwanted product of certain types of energy conversion. From how you write it, it would seem like a forced passage. Reading various texts to me does not seem to understand that it is as you say.
You talk about transfer but transfer of what? heat ? or do you mean the "conversion of energy" as the term "transfer" ? Locally to energy conversion, heat is not transferred but originates from losses in the energy conversion process.
It is not a transfer but it is "origin" (by energy conversion), it is different. After its "origin", this heat is transferred to other matter (solid, liquid or gaseous) and / or dispersed in the surrounding environment.

A portion of the converted energy is converted into heat but the "transfer" of heat I do not believe has anything to do with the conversion of energy. Transfer of heat is a process derived from the presence of heat, as a product of energy conversion.

You write: "Heat is the conductor of energy conversion".
In my opinion, what you say is not correct. It is not thanks to the heat that conversion of energy takes place but instead heat is a (often unwanted) product of the conversion process.


(I seem to understand that you are doing a little bit of confusion.)
Maybe you ar referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero ??
If you mean that, in a sense you're right, but you're taking it too far. ;-)

Would you be so kind to put the reference link of any text (of physics) in which it is mentioned what you say ? Thank you :-)

Well done. You obviously know your physics. :-)

[unstable]

In this forum, everyone knows/interprets things in his own way. We could never be scientists. :-)

[BesslerInterested]

Edit

[unstable]

BesslerInterested, maybe adding springs, the design you posted it is the Bessler wheel. I would not be astonished. Who know...
It is clear that, at least, in that design we can talk about "connectedness" :-)
but unfortunately it is only a drawing and I do not know if in physical reality the weights are arranged in that way or if a balance is created between the left and right side of the wheel. It should be simulated or even better built ... but it is not easy.


Silvertiger, the page you have linked is almost exclusively related to chemical reactions. There are no references to mechanical and electrical energy conversion.

[Silvertiger]

No it isn't. Just read the three laws. That's it. First Law is conservation of energy, second law is that entropy always increases until thermal equilibrium is achieved (once heat stops being transferred, the energy conversion process also stops), and the third law is that entropy approaches a constant value as a system approaches absolute zero. None of these laws have placed a specific label such as chemical , nuclear, mechanical, electrical, etc....they are all included.

And none of these are my "interpretations." I took physics in college and passed with flying colors. What I type here is what I have learned from professors, text books, and labs, and experiments. Do you think that if you read something once and believe that you understand it that you are automatically an expert on the subject? That's what google learning does for you. Go get you some physics and precalculus text books and learn it the right way. Verified results achieved in labs and experimentation leave very little room for "interpretation." Interpretation is an excuse for not knowing another language, and in this case, the language of physics.

[unstable]

Ok Tiger, I stop here. :-)

[Oystein]

As someone had written, it could be that Bessler was able to dislocate the position of a mass only apparently and for a certain number of degrees, just for the time to let gravity act. It is the only sensible thing that could lead to the results obtained by him. But how he did it I have no idea at the moment ...

Mhm,good point!
It’s just exactly what the Gentleman’s Magazine Self Moving Wheel of 1751 looks like, which was published just ~2 Years After Besslers Death.
Maybe we all overlooking the obvious here?

This Wheel, in an almost shockingly contrasting difference, to every yet so great new idea that has been brought forward, and came up from selfmade Bessler Reinventers, including forums and think tanks like here and elsewhere, it seems to match every one of Besslers Wheel details perfectly

Firstly I believe at least one member of this forum has built it without success, you might investigate that case further..

It was published approx. 6 years after Bessler's death.

To me it looks like it has been constructed from some of the basic code that initially appears in AP. i guess several examples of AP would still be around for study at that time.

Still many clues not matching. No "raising weights in a flash". No, "one side empty and the other side full". No "preponderance".. etc.

My 2 cents.

ØR

[unstable]

"Still many clues not matching. No "raising weights in a flash". No, "one side empty and the other side full". No "preponderance".. etc."

Oystein, I really hope that these clues are not taken literally. How can a weight rise in a flash ? in my opinion, empty part and full part is a way of saying that one part weighs more than the other, so it behaves like an overbalanced wheel. Same for the term "preponderance".

[Oystein]

As far as Bessler's descriptions of the interior go, I try to take them literally or not use them at all. If I should put a lot of interpretation into them it would be more like my words...not his.

You may yourself interpret his words as you like.

I made the comment simply because the post said that most descriptions fitted! If he want to build it, he is free, but I just wanted to give my advice. Maybe time and money could be better spent?

Empty for me, does not mean "just as many" (or even more) as in this drawing.

Preponderance to me, means greater in number, not equal or less (as in this drawing). It certainly doesn't mean that the weights are a little closer to the rim on the descending side, the actual trap that Bessler warned about.

Since this wheel doesn't overbalance in weight nor numbers, it wouldn't matter if you like preponderance to be overbalance by force rather than numbers.

In a flash would mean at least faster than the wheel's or frame's own speed. That is very possible. "In a flash" meaning literally the same speed as light/lightning, you are of course correct :) Anyway, I see NO quick raising in this wheel.

Quote from mind: "The weights that restbelow, must in a flash be raised".

Actually the wheel uses the same principle as MT9-10-11 etc. just in the opposite manner/place. In the MT's, the descending weights rise the weights at the top. In this drawing the ascending weights, lift the weights at the bottom. I think that is well tested and dismissed.

I also see a rope or wire of great tension. This is od course more a mechanical problem. I relate it to 1700s mech. A rope would be way to sloppy and stretchy for this config.

As I said, this exact wheel has been built by members of this forum.. but as I recall I was not allowed to tell who. If they see it, maybe they will explain their experience themself.

ØR

[ovyyus]

As far as Bessler's descriptions of the interior go, I try to take them literally or not use them at all. If I should put a lot of interpretation into them it would be more like my words...not his.

In a flash would mean at least faster than the wheel's or frame's own speed. That is very possible. "In a flash" meaning literally the same speed as light/lightning, you are of course correct...

Bessler didn't write, "in a flash". Treating an English interpretation of Bessler's 18th C German writing as 'literal' is problematic, at best.

[John Collins]

Yes, we have to take into account three factors, one was Mike Senior’s translation which on my suggestion was not literal but done to make it read correctly. In other words as he believed Bessler intended, but not literally word for word Grrma to English.

And secondly Bessler’s predilection for the flamboyant phrase and his personal poetic style.

And lastly 18th C German translated into 21st C English.

JC

[Oystein]

Do any remember the page/chapter?

I have both German language education from school, and my wife is a German. I will have a shot at it. Several years since I looked at that phrase myself.

Best
ØR

[ovyyus]

Thanks John. The lesson is beware of binary thinking. Especially when it's in good faith.

[unstable]

A silly idea that many have already thought and discarded .. maybe:

I was thinking of a method to change the ratio in a simple lever. If we imagine a simple (trivial) system in which there is a pair of weight and spring located in diametrically opposite position and close to the rim of the wheel. Example 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. In both cases the springs push the weights towards the circumference. At 12 o'clock we have the spring push minus the weight of the mass. At six o'clock we have the spring push plus the weight of the mass. I was thinking of putting a variable ratio lever system that connect the two pair of weight and spring.
I predict that the energy needed for the ratio lever switch, completely cancels the torque obtained from the unbalancing of the weights.