The Laws of Perpetual Motion

[christo4_99]

laws are basically proven theories,or modus opporandi,i think what Bessler was saying is that he was privi to these methods and the sole proponent and founder of the science itself since nobody else knew what he was doing or how he achieved it.At this point i must admit that i can imagine how Bessler felt about his skeptics or detractors since none of them knew even a word of what they were trying to discuss.Many of us are so eager to impress,to spew forth from our mouths what we know and yet we know not,the mystery is just as far away as it ever was.Therefore i say,cling to things that you know,for when the deed is done it will be done in the same world and not some other.

[arjay30]

I think Newton's First Law is the Law of Perpetual Motion

FIRST LAW . Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

1. if you spin a wheel it will slow because of the external forces applied to it. drag and air resistance

2. if you spin a wheel in outer space it will spin forever because it has no external forces applied to it. = Perpetual Motion

so how to arrange weights on a spinning wheel that add no external forces to it is what i think bessler was trying to teach us in this clue.

"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way
that weights applied in accordance with the laws of
Perpetual Motion, work once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement"

so it you put one weight on one side and one on the other side of the wheel it will stay in balance and adds no external forces to it.

you have a rim heavy flywheel and i think that is the main part of his machine.
not the hole machine just the main part.

just my thoughts on the subject

[jim_mich]

It might be better to describe Bessler's wheels as perpetual forceful motion because they did more than just turn perpetually, they turned with force, and had the ability to speed up until they reach an optimum speed.

[Alexioco]

Jim that sounds good. How would that work though? The weights want to travel at a certain speed? What about the bolts that regulated the motion...?

Alex

[jim_mich]

First, the statement about bolts regulating the motion is an incorrect translation. Do a forum search where it has been discussed a few years ago.

The weights want to travel at a certain speed?

Do you remember that the witnesses heard the weights banging as the wheel rotated? This indicates that they moved faster before hitting something, which was most likely a hit against the wheel pushing the wheel forward. If the hit did not push the wheel forward then it would waste energy. For the weights to push the wheel they need to hit the wheel in a forward direction faster than the wheel. The weights would bounce back after hitting the wheel. Thus the weights would be moving in a direction opposite the wheel rotation. This leaves the weights moving very slowly relative to absolute space outside the wheel. Before they can hit the wheel again they must speed up again, and this acceleration requires a certain amount of time. Thus, like a pendulum, the oscillations of the weights have a natural oscillation frequency. This natural frequency determines the wheel speed.

[getterdone]

I like your theory Jim, but I have a slithly different one. I think that the sound that the witnesses heard was a lever assembly similar to a battering ram ,swinging and hitting the wheel at three O'clock. However the timing issues in both theories , in my opinion,are the same.

I keep running into timing issues. I don't have the math skills that many members here do. I was wondering if anyone had ever reverse engineered Besslers wheel. As an example if you take the speed one of his wheels turned, let's say 40 rpm, and assumed he had 8 weights, how far could those weights travel in the time allowed, using only gravity?

Any help will be appreciated.

[Unbalanced]

Christo4_99 wrote:

weights must be arranged so that their direction of swing is always preceded by their point of attachment.

When I first read this I liked the concept because it seemed to be in agreement with Bessler's quote:

"they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing." - pg 191

I saw this as a pendulum that could never reach the bottom of its arc because its attach point was always just ahead of it.

I have thought about this for a week or so now and it occurs to me that if
the weights were "always preceded by their point of attachment" the weights would be in effect, getting pulled by their point of attachment through half of a complete revolution and this would (in my mind) subtract from the wheels energy ie the wheel would be pulling the weights not the weights pulling the wheel at least through half of their travel hence a balanced situation.

[path_finder]

Dear Jim_Mich,

Do you remember that the witnesses heard the weights banging as the wheel rotated? This indicates that they moved faster before hitting something, which was most likely a hit against the wheel pushing the wheel forward.

If you investigate the Patrick wheel, no deduction at all can be possible based only on the internal noise.
IMHO it is the same for the Bessler wheel, where the noise cannot be an useful clue.
see here (again): http://www.besslerwheelsolved.com/

[Unbalanced]

Good Day Path_finder,

I have often thought that Bessler may have added these bumping weights as red herrings. The "four pound" weights that he let the eyewitnesses hold and that some feel were hollow, may have been aligned on the inner rim like an abacus solely to distract.

If indeed there were eight, four-lb. weights falling on the descending side per revolution this would seem an inadequate number to accomplish the lifting the wheel supposedly demonstrated.

On another note:

Thanks heaps for posting that youtube video on the gravity wheel in Planada, California. It has set me on a path of contacting the inventor's children and those of his original partners. It is not that I believe his wheel had the least potential for self-running but rather a guy who devoted 37-years of ridicule and industry to this pursuit on that scale should be recognized on Peswiki or the Museum of Unworkable Devises or here. If nothing else there will be something to learn from his failure.

[to.late]

I think Newton's First Law is the Law of Perpetual Motion

FIRST LAW . Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

1. if you spin a wheel it will slow because of the external forces applied to it. drag and air resistance

2. if you spin a wheel in outer space it will spin forever because it has no external forces applied to it. = Perpetual Motion

so how to arrange weights on a spinning wheel that add no external forces to it is what i think bessler was trying to teach us in this clue.

"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way
that weights applied in accordance with the laws of
Perpetual Motion, work once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement"

so it you put one weight on one side and one on the other side of the wheel it will stay in balance and adds no external forces to it.

you have a rim heavy flywheel and i think that is the main part of his machine.
not the hole machine just the main part.

just my thoughts on the subject

#2 has been observed to be wrong. Sorry.
A question previously asked and answered is what powers an over balanced wheel.
The Earth does. As such, what ever energy a perpetual wheel generates is considered to be taken from the Earth and slows it's spin appropriately.
An example is, with enough perpetual wheels spinning, the Earth would cease to rotate. Physics 101. The perpetual wheel would be considered a satellite consuming the Earth of it's energy.

[to.late]

First, the statement about bolts regulating the motion is an incorrect translation. Do a forum search where it has been discussed a few years ago.

The weights want to travel at a certain speed?

Do you remember that the witnesses heard the weights banging as the wheel rotated? This indicates that they moved faster before hitting something, which was most likely a hit against the wheel pushing the wheel forward. If the hit did not push the wheel forward then it would waste energy. For the weights to push the wheel they need to hit the wheel in a forward direction faster than the wheel. The weights would bounce back after hitting the wheel. Thus the weights would be moving in a direction opposite the wheel rotation. This leaves the weights moving very slowly relative to absolute space outside the wheel. Before they can hit the wheel again they must speed up again, and this acceleration requires a certain amount of time. Thus, like a pendulum, the oscillations of the weights have a natural oscillation frequency. This natural frequency determines the wheel speed.

Jim,
You ignore the obvious. Maybe you should read up on physics ?
If weights opposing one another simultaneously advance and retard their motions, they would cancel each other out. Basic math at that. -x + x = 0.
This would mean that the weights that essentially do not provide over balance but perform the work to create it would not have a negative effect on the wheel excep0t for the extra mass they require the wheel to carry.
That is, if you know how his wheel worked :-)

[to.late]

Jim that sounds good. How would that work though? The weights want to travel at a certain speed? What about the bolts that regulated the motion...?

Alex

Do you know you are a part of the reason I had Stefan delete my account ?
All you could say is, say nice things about Alan. I think a moderator should do more than that.

[to.late]

Jim that sounds good. How would that work though? The weights want to travel at a certain speed? What about the bolts that regulated the motion...?

Alex

Alex,
Most likely, Bessler only used the iron for his axle. Other than that, no metal was needed.
Maybe you should become familiar with history ?

edited to add; Alex, I will always remember that you as moderator allowed AB Hammer to be disruptive in any discussion I had with people like myself, people who speak English as a second language.
You see, people who speak Dutch take this a bit more seriously as it is a part of their heritage. And it could be as has been confirmed that America is in the bottom 1/3rd of the top 57 or so countries in science and math. England probably isn't to fr behind.
And yet when people take the time to learn more about these subjects, it really doesn't matter in these forums.
After all, Jim_Mich in his analysis missed a very basic point. Kind of hard to over look. A wheel rotates, and as it does, it's behavior should reciprocate. Yet everyone is looking for a prime mover which is your idea and not a reciprocating behavior which would be required. After all, if it can't reverse itself, how would it work ?
Oops, Bessler did say his wheel was reverseable. Guess his work disagrees with you guys, sorry.

[rlortie]

Forum debate or food for thought:

Do you remember that the witnesses heard the weights banging as the wheel rotated? This indicates that they moved faster before hitting something, which was most likely a hit against the wheel pushing the wheel forward.

Yes, I for one have read the translated eye witness reports of hearing the alleged weights banging. It is human instinct and sometimes in error to make an assumption that the weights were traveling faster than the wheel. I would say that the description does not objectively imply what is banging into what and is an educated guess that some believe, and may be wrong.

What if it was the wheel banging into the weights? Elongated or warped boards acting as paddles displacing/shifting the weights. An impetus that kept them moving so as not to ever find that which is naturally sought.

The weights gain force by their own swinging, if this is so then something has to keep them in motion. Compare it to a pendulum driven clock, with each tick or tooth of the escapement wheel the pendulum receives a nudge or impetus to keep it swinging.

With the amount of years and man hours spent in this pursuit, I feel quite confident that the weights do not swing by simply rotating the wheel. Something has to keep them in motion. Is it reasonable to ask; if the weights were traveling faster than the wheel what happens after the bang? Is the possibility that the wheel is pushing the weights ahead to far out to comprehend?

Ralph

[to.late]

>>Compare it to a pendulum driven clock, with each tick or tooth of the escapement wheel the pendulum receives a nudge or impetus to keep it swinging.<<

This is wrong. What keeps a pendulum swinging in a pendulum clock is a weight. The pendulum is merely helping to time the movement of the clock. Without the pendulum, they would not keep accurate time.

edited to add; the weights that power pendulum clocks can be geared as low as 1500:1. A drum is used as well as a series of gears.
The pendulum only gets a push in one direction. The length of the pendulum is what determines how much time it takes to swing.
If people did proper research, these basics would be known. As such, what I know about opposing levers is by building actual Bessler drawings to understand what he probably knew. It is in quite a few of his drawings.
It seems building Bessler non-runners does help contrary to some peoples opinions :-)