My Original Idea

[AB Hammer]

That is a cool story, Fletcher

It seamed to answer an enigma in my life. I seam to be able to beat some really good chess players including the Ohio state champ for about 4 to 5 time in a row and then never win again against them, ever!. So I learned to stop at 3 games just to mess with them. I tended to play in a way that confused them but it just took them a little time to figure me out, then I couldn't touch them. But it was fun listening to them beg for a rematch. ;7 LOL

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Fletch, I like it! familiarizing oneself with snapshots of previous designs and incorporating them in the "minds eye" library for instant reference. You know, I may not be the brightest crayon in the box....but I too, can look at a lot of these anymore and come to that conclusion. I reason that it is because I have spent so much time on this the last couple of years.

Hey Bess....

A flaw I see in your idea of the development of Bessler's genius is this. There are many grandmasters but there is only one Bessler. Why do you suppose that's so?

The game was already invented...the genius was how to win consistently. Bessler had to invent PM....not play it against others.
This really isn't a fair comparison. Bessler seemed to play a process of elimination, at least that is how it comes across in AP. Just before he had his epiphany....he talks about how he had just finished another failed idea and ended up crying himself to sleep, it was becoming harder to accept the defeat. So, he just needed to win one time, just one time to be a "Grandmaster".

Hey Pete....

We are looking at something relatively simple to build but would take a super computer to calculate after programming. That’s assuming someone has the data needed for the program. Springs come to mind.

There is a little passage I put up here just a bit ago where Bessler implies the math is already done and can be proven! Maybe it is just that dadgummed simple.....;-).

It is my opinion that Bessler’s wheel used gravity as its driving force; the prime mover used both speed and gravity to over balance the wheel. It’s the speed bit one needs to understand.

I believe my first ever thread on this sight was "wheel acceleration"....this was the aspect of Besslers wheels that blew me away. Not only could it just perpetually spin....it hauled ass! His first two wheels were over 50 rpm's. I can't help but think there is something obvious in a weird sort of way here, and we just don't see it. It's not a part of that pictoral arrangement in our minds that we are programmed to look for. Sort of like wind...you can feel it...you can see it work, but you can't paint a picture of it...


Steve

[AB Hammer]

bluesgtr44

I believe my first ever thread on this sight was "wheel acceleration"....this was the aspect of Besslers wheels that blew me away. Not only could it just perpetually spin....it hauled ass! His first two wheels were over 50 rpm's. I can't help but think there is something obvious in a weird sort of way here, and we just don't see it. It's not a part of that pictoral arrangement in our minds that we are programmed to look for. Sort of like wind...you can feel it...you can see it work, but you can't paint a picture of it...

The way I see it is your speed can be the same speed of a continues fall, but you have CF factors and movement factors that retard this. Bessler used pendulums on each side to I believe slow it down just a little to keep it from surging. For CF will pull it and equal your balance and then slow it down back to unbalanced. The pendulums where to make the wheel stable.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Alan....

The way I see it is your speed can be the same speed of a continues fall, but you have CF factors and movement factors that retard this. Bessler used pendulums on each side to I believe slow it down just a little to keep it from surging. For CF will pull it and equal your balance and then slow it down back to unbalanced. The pendulums where to make the wheel stable.

About the speed of the fall....I tried to simulate that with the Draschwitz wheel. It had a diameter of just over 9 ft. Now, at 56 rpm's, the falling weight will not keep up. This is with the understanding that the weight will have to reset itself at the higher position and basically start all over again...no launching, no throwing, no CF swinging...just to reset itself at the higher level to fall all over again. The pendulums that Bessler displays in his drawings are never mentioned as far as being used in any of the demonstrations of any of his wheels....he mentions that they are to be used as regulating devices and it appears that they smooth the rotation when performing heavier work....IMO. The first two one way wheels did not employ them in any way as far as I know...he never indicates that they provide any kind of extra power to the overall device, just that it helps to regulate the motion.


Steve

[AB Hammer]

bluesgtr44

It is a big question on how fast. From the extreme to the practical. We still don't really know, and can only assume. But one way from the days of breaking the sound beerier it was speed plus gravity equaled increased acceleration and then the sound beerier was broke. Simply said, they used gravity to make it happen in the early days.

The pendulums that Bessler displays in his drawings are never mentioned as far as being used in any of the demonstrations of any of his wheels....he mentions that they are to be used as regulating devices and it appears that they smooth the rotation when performing heavier work....IMO.

It still seam like a serging problem, for a serging could cause problems in an operation of the wheel under a load, but the load could also smooth off the possible serging.

[rlortie]

Wow! Fletcher, you have certainly turned this thread around and made it productive.

Bessler looked where others had looked, but he looked so intensely that he blindly stumbled over that which he was looking for. Assuming, that it was not there as others had already looked!

It has been estimated that his machine produced in the neighborhood of 25 watts of net output power, using weights that were concluded to weigh four pounds each.

This question is prompted by a private PM, and I seek an answer to the following; How many watts can the average 180 pound man produce pedaling a bicycle mounted generator. Hoping that the the stigma of math can be of use here. Use any variation of amps-volts AC or DC you wish, the total watts being the true measure of work, IMO should come out the same.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

"The typical average continuous power that can be generated by pedaling is about one-sixth horsepower or 125 watts, more or less, depending on the weight, strength, and endurance of the person pedaling."
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/WeiLiangMok.shtml

"The average power that a typical cyclist will deliver is on the order of 150 watts, or 1/5th of a horsepower. If your curious, most modern exercise bikes will display the exact wattage and you can get a feel for how much power you're producing with the legs. A fit individual can sustain 350 watts for about 10 minutes and up to 600 watts for a few seconds, but for continuous riding between 100-200 W is typical."
http://www.ebikes.ca/faq.shtml

[Bessler007]

Steve,

The game of hide and seek with perpetual motion was invented before Bessler's time. That motion is hiding like a needle in a hay stack the size of the universe and with mechanics people for a very long time have been seeking it. As Ralph noted, Bessler said he found it where others had looked.

That statement should be a nagging thought in everyone's mind as they look at a design and think, 'been there, done that and got the tee-shirt.'

If Bessler can be believed when he said he found it where others have looked then the reasonable conclusion is there were similarities between his design and those that previously didn't work.

More to the question though is, 'what were the differences?' I don't think Bessler stumbled on an answer. He looked at what had been attempted and asked himself the question, 'why won't this work?', then took it a step further and asked, 'If I make a difference here would that address the cause of it not working?'

Even with that method there could be way too many hiding places for perpetual motion. The hay stack could still be too large for a single person to search through it in a lifetime.

It could be life's too short to play hide and seek with perpetual motion. It always wins. Some of the most brilliant minds over time have looked and looked. By reason of their brilliance they've concluded, 'it's impossible!'

If more brilliant minds than Bessler's failed to find it, yet he did, there might be some credence to the idea a vastly more powerful and intelligent being gave Bessler a vision in a dream.

Son of man, look here, right under your nose.

[rlortie]

Thanks Jim_Mich for the info and links.

Kind of gives you an idea of how many four pound weights would be required to produce 25 watts. One must keep in mind though, that the tare weight does not include the weight that must be re-applied to reset the weights.

"Many pieces of lead" may be an understatement!

Ralph

[DrWhat]

Hi guys,

we shouldn't think that because the great minds failed that it is even less acheivable than unachievable!
If you look at Leonardo Da Vinci, he made a feeble and in my mind embarrasing attempt at an overbalanced wheel. He only has one example (pehaps two) I have seen of such an attempt.

Since he was a mechanical genius, I feel as though he was being taunted to try his hand at perpetual motion. As though he wanted to get the issue out of the way to silence the irritators.

He designed what had essentially been thought of before, got the issue out of the way, and moved on.

So we shouldn't look at his efforts as having exhausted all the options.

(Oh, and don't even get me started on the Mythbuster's crappy attempts)

[Fletcher]

phew .. time zones suck

A flaw I see in your idea of the development of Bessler's genius is this. There are many grandmasters but there is only one Bessler. Why do you suppose that's so?

Steve said it very well ..

The game was already invented...the genius was how to win consistently.

Bessler had to invent PM....not play it against others.

This really isn't a fair comparison. Bessler seemed to play a process of elimination, at least that is how it comes across in AP. Just before he had his epiphany....he talks about how he had just finished another failed idea and ended up crying himself to sleep, it was becoming harder to accept the defeat. So, he just needed to win one time, just one time to be a "Grandmaster".

There have been a lot of people before Bessler and after with excellent comprehension of mechanics and many better than Bessler. Yet some how he managed to find a needle in a haystack the size of the known universe.

What are the odds of that?

Beyond my math capabilities to compute I'm afraid ;7)

The best I can do is offer up a metaphorical analogy, but I think it is accurate !

Bessler went to climb a mountain, one never before conquered - he didn't start from the back of the mountain where nobody went but set off following the footsteps of other mountaineers before him - he didn't go unprepared, he studied everything about the climb, he studied photo's & weather maps & written accounts of the climb & he was mentally strong & determined - he reached base camp 1 [OOB wheels] that everybody used, & pitched a tent for a first night on the mountain & every day he climbed, reaching & staying at higher camps until at last he reached the highest & last camp, the camp where everybody else had been forced to return to after failing an attempt at the summit - Bessler regrouped & struck out on his own to find the way to the top of the hill - it called on all his training & knowledge [both his own & those who had come before him] & his intellectual curiosity to finally conquer the mountain - the final push to the top was a way that seemed insane, totally counter-intuitive, to the minds of most men, & why it had not been tried by the others.

He climbed that mountain because he had a need to - no one had done it before him & when it got tough, unlike so many others who were weak or under-prepared & had given up, he pressed on to find a way up & he didn't listen to the inner voices of doubt that told him not to be silly & go home to a nice warm bed, that it was folly to try to climb the impossible, where so many other more able & deserving & distinguished climbers had failed so miserably - he had resolve & tenacity & cunning beyond the measure of ordinary men - & oh yes, he didn't try to summit by climbing back down to & then climbing back up from base camp 1

[rlortie]

As posted in a recent private post, My math:

Any attempt to build or duplicate what Bessler allegedly did requires Patience, Persistence and Perseverance. If you maintain the three “P’s�, someday you may find out how two change the equation of 3P to PM.

Ralph

[Jim_Lindgaard]

This is getting hilarious for me. having Jim_L on my ignore list omits all his input. Reading the response without seeing the subject is more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Can you disprove any proven conservation law?

I thought that is what all the ruckus was about, his math did just that! Just ask him.


Well said! although I keep searching for a gravity wheel I do my fair share of scrutinizing before making my opinion known. If I feel my findings or opinion are questionable then I holler for help. It is rare for a design to come along that leaves one of experience scratching their head, and that is the type we all look forward to.

Is He gone yet? sure has been a lot quieter around here.

Sorry! I seem to be recovering from over exposure to an ego syndrome. All day I have been singing the "sour milk song" it goes; bum-titty, bum-titty, bum-titty :0)

Ralph

Sorry to disappoint yoiu Ralph. Must ahve mistyped my e-mail when swithching addresses. Locks ya out.
Do have to wonder why you avoid math. And yes, with it quiet, you can say you know what Bessler did. Have seen nothing yet, even in amth that supports you.
Like Sevich told me, you rely on your reputation, not on anythng that can be quantified.
To make you feel better Ralph, you little boy, my address is 100 Brown Stret, Berea, Kentucky.
When you come and visit me, Ic an show you my MRI that will show I diid sustin brain damge when I was ran over.
Is that the best you can do for your reputation ? Attack someone that provides amth yet say, you have brain damage ?
You are the man. What can I say ? And this is what your reputation is based on ? I am glad for your supporters.
Let me know when your flight arrives, I will pick you up. Doubt you will need it, judst trying not to be you.

[Fletcher]

snipped .. It is my opinion that just building wheels with the hope that you might discover the secret is not the way. Nor is the math approach, if this could have been calculated, it would have been done many years ago.

We are looking at something relatively simple to build but would take a super computer to calculate after programming. That’s assuming someone has the data needed for the program. Springs come to mind.

The laws of conservation of energy are broad brush. There is a loophole but it will be a needle in a haystack. Others believe it and so do I.

Pete.

Thanks for the insightful response Pete - I agree that it should be relatively simple to build [relative to todays available technology] but picking up on Steve's later comments about Bessler's inference that the math was already out there, I doubt it would take a super computer to figure it.

The Law of Conservation of Energy is broad brushed, you & others may be right that it can be circumvented via a loophole - myself, I believe it will remain unbreeched, which means that boringly, the extra energy the wheel makes available to do work must come, not from gravity, but ultimately be garnered from the wheel surrounds - i.e. an OOB wheel causes wheel torque & rotation & a Prime Mover force [or energy if you prefer] restores weights to their full potential each cycle - an alternative hypothesis to your own.

[Jim_Lindgaard]

As posted in a recent private post, My math:

Any attempt to build or duplicate what Bessler allegedly did requires Patience, Persistence and Perseverance. If you maintain the three “P’s�, someday you may find out how two change the equation of 3P to PM.

Ralph

Gotta love it Ralph. That's what I wrote to you. And you say you don't like me ? That's cool. It really is. You do like what I say !!!!!!!!!!!!!