Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[MrTim]

If I had a working wheel providing me with energy and I had to change the bearings every 6 months I would be more than happy. Don't forget though that what ever energy you get from the machine has to be ideally a lot more than the energy it takes to replace its parts.
Graham

If your PM is built well enough, most of the parts you'll be replacing as they wear out will be in your electric generators... ;-)

[Roxaway59]

Hi MrTim,
....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."

Is that a direct quote from Bessler?

I don't always recall all the things he wrote.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Mornin all - mo's .. to be considered a 'true mechanical perpetual motion' it just has to keep rotating ( i.e. be self-moving ) after it has started rotating - that is, within the definition of "true mechanical Perpetual motion" which didn't then, and doesn't now, included diurnal environmental forces like temperature and pressure changes etc .. there is no requirement for its parts to not wear out or need to be replaced periodically as this is common to all terrestrial machines ..

On that note B's. earlier one-way wheels had to be tied down in any position they were stopped at i.e. they had instant torque from any position - this fits closely with what B. himself said about his wheels i.e. paraphrased "as long as they remain out of the center of gravity" - IOW's, in any position there was always available torque to cause rotation, if released or not under too much load ..

If the mechanical conundrum of ever-present torque, or excess-weight ( as B. described it, and 'superior force' as W. described it, attributed to B. ) were to be solved mechanically then we have the next problem to resolve .. what is its energy source ?

Gravity "force" or 'g' force is a force ( i.e. mass x acceleration ) - under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle/framework force x distance is equivalent and indistinguishable from Joules of energy e.g. KE and PE ( mgh ) - IOW's f x d = Joules, and N x m ..

So under the doctrine of science and physics 'g' can not ever be energy ( Joules or Nm ) ..

However, circling back to the previous argument for one-way wheels we know that B's. wheels always had rotational torque in any position stopped at, thus were always unbalanced, and always "primed" to rotate - and since 'g' force is not energy per se then we have the additional little matter of how real energy ( or movement ) was introduced into the wheel environment and transformed into Work output as f x d Nm or Joules ..

It is probably worth noting in the above context that none of B's. wheels were ever exhibited other than firmly attached to the earth's surface - none were demonstrated powering boats and punts across lakes, or rivers, or seas - none propelled a carriage down a road or rail-like track .. altho these would have been obvious deployments with huge marketing potential and public interest and appeal imo ..

[MrTim]

Hi MrTim,
....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."

Is that a direct quote from Bessler?

I don't always recall all the things he wrote.

Graham

It's a paraphrase of a quote from Fermat's Last Theorum... ;-)

[Roxaway59]

Thanks MrTim.

Fletcher my remark about perpetual motion is based on this kind of statement that you find on sites like Wikipedia.

A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source.

It not a view that I have.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

This is the same kind of thing that people say similar to there's no such thing as a free lunch. I say to them do you see that great fiery ball in the sky its called the sun. Then they say yes but that's only going to last a few more billion years then what are we going to do? --)

Graham

[Fletcher]

I suggest Graham that when one is once gain invented and shown as the "runner" it is, and which proves to be always in continuous imbalance ( i.e. always out of CoG ), that many a thesis will be written on the subject of its source of power/energy ( exactly like every other machine requires that does Work ) and its ability to do an infinite amount of external Work until its parts wear out - that is, infinite time period to do Work, not infinite Load moving capability .. I will read that with interest, hopefully from a deck chair in the sun somewhere, remembering these discussions on the same subject, but without the benefit of a runner merrily rotating before us ..

[SHADOW]

Bonjour à tous,
selon moi, ce qui met en mouvement la roue c'est la gravité, si l'on considère la gravité comme un flux tel un mouvement d'eau, d'air, d'électrons ou champs magnétique, nous ne pourrons pas trouver la solution car nous ne pouvons pas manipuler ou orienter le flux gravitaire tel les mouvements cités.
Qu'avons nous comme subterfuge pour utiliser le flux gravitaire pour créer la rotation de la roue?
l'utilisation d'un balourd permanent coté descendant.
Nous butons sur la remontée de poids ou la réinitialisation du balourd! peut être que celle ci n'est pas nécessaire.
Donc on peut en déduire 1 que le balourd constitue la moteur principal 2 qu'il est permanent.
Quelle méthode est utilisée pour vaincre les balourds, quelle méthode utilise le balourd, l'étude des vibrations et leurs résolution, l'utilisation des systèmes vibrants pour secouer les matériaux.
Quant à parler de mouvement perpétuel avec des sophistes, c'est une perte de temps, nous sommes dans le domaine de la mécanique avec des contraintes que nous pouvons optimiser.
Quant à la taille de la roue par rapport à son moteur, Bessler a utilisé un tambour pour masquer l'ensemble de son mécanisme (unique ou multiple).
Donc à mon avis son système peut être plus grand que la roue de sortie de son mécanisme qui entraine le tambour de masquage.
Fin de mes élucubrations.
J.B

Hello everyone,
in my opinion, what sets the wheel in motion is gravity, if we consider gravity as a flux such as a movement of water, air, electrons or magnetic fields, we will not be able to find the solution because we cannot manipulate or direct the gravity flow as the movements quoted.
What subterfuge do we have to use the gravity flow to create the rotation of the wheel?
the use of a permanent unbalanced descending side.
We stumble on the weight rise or the reset of the unbalance! maybe this one is not necessary.
So we can deduce 1 that the unbalanced is the main engine 2 that it is permanent.
What method is used to defeat the balourds, what method uses the balourd, the study of vibrations and their resolution, the use of vibrating systems to shake the materials.
As for talking about perpetual motion with sophists, it is a waste of time, we are in the field of mechanics with constraints that we can optimize.
As for the size of the wheel compared to its engine, Bessler used a drum to mask its entire mechanism (single or multiple).
So in my opinion its system can be larger than the output wheel of its mechanism that drives the masking drum.
End of my fantasies.
J.B

[daxwc]

I think ultimately the energy is coming from earth’s rotation within the warping of spacetime; hinting at a interplay between fundamental physical principles. Considering the source of energy within this framework, I think that Earth's rotation interacts dynamically with spacetime, potentially creating a reservoir of gravitational energy. This idea implies that earth's motion taps into spacetime's curvature, accessing a significant energy source off its rotational momentum. However, I have no idea how it is breaking the frame of reference.

[Fletcher]

When was the first paddle boat invented?

Quick Reference. Like the pedalo off holiday beaches today, a vessel using a man-powered paddle wheel for propulsion. In China, where they appeared in the 8th century, and perhaps even as early as the 5th, they were used as tugs and as passenger river ships.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display ... 3100300581

Google .. Paddle Propulsion Boat

Wikipedia => Propeller .. Leonardo da Vinci perfected early versions of paddled propelled vessels and brought forth improved plans. Leonardo's paddleboat used large wheel-shaped paddles that propelled it through water. In his design, sailors worked foot pedals to rotate the paddles.

The origin of the screw propeller starts at least as early as Archimedes (c. 287 – c. 212 BC), who used a screw to lift water for irrigation and bailing boats, so famously that it became known as Archimedes' screw. It was probably an application of spiral movement in space (spirals were a special study of Archimedes) to a hollow segmented water-wheel used for irrigation by Egyptians for centuries. A flying toy, the bamboo-copter, was enjoyed in China beginning around 320 AD. Later, Leonardo da Vinci adopted the screw principle to drive his theoretical helicopter, sketches of which involved a large canvas screw overhead.


.. B. engraved in his books and used an Archimedean water screw for his demonstration at Kassel, lifting water .. but never made a self-propelled pedalo or paddle boat to demonstrate the power, adaptability, and versatility of his runners on water or seas and simultaneously reducing labour and operational costs - nor a self-propelled cart on land or rail for the same reasons, including the potential for war efforts and industrialization requiring the transportation of goods ..

++ He did not even have the Merseburg wheel on a low riding cart or trolley with wheels or sleds to move a short distance to carry out the translocation tests - as the criticism was that the wheel was turned via a crank thru the roof down thru the supports ..


** The ability to do so would have been a huge and genius marketing strategy, and opportunity, for a man with limited selling options who failed to find a buyer for 33 years for his perpetual motion "runners" .. he was not commercially naive, it was not an oversight, and his benefactor Karl was well appraised of the situation and commercial potential ..

My Conclusion .. a runner was bound/anchored to the earth, in one place, for very practical ( i.e. perpetual motion principle functionality ) reasons and inherent operational restrictions !

[Roxaway59]

I think that's an important point Fletcher and Bessler did write something of his concerns that a knock on the wheel might put it out of balance. I get the feeling that it couldn't stand being moved about.

Graham

[SHADOW]

C'est peut être là qu'intervient l'idée de Sam concernant un stabilisateur lesté! car en cas de déplacement il se serait mis à osciller.
This is perhaps where Sam’s idea about a weighted stabilizer comes in! because in case of displacement it would have started to oscillate.

[daxwc]

Heh, Roxway59 this is what co-pilot thought of your comment and I thought it worth noting.
Copilot:

That’s a very astute point. In a mechanical system like the Merseburg wheel, if there are two independent systems or components that need to move freely, synchronization could be crucial. If these systems are not properly synchronized, it could lead to imbalances or inefficiencies in the operation of the wheel.

Moreover, such a system could indeed be sensitive to movement or disturbances. For example, if the wheel is moved or knocked, it could disrupt the synchronization of these independent systems, potentially affecting the operation of the wheel.

This could be one of the reasons why Bessler was concerned about maintaining the balance of his wheel and why he might have been reluctant to move it. It also underscores the complexity and precision involved in designing and building mechanical systems, particularly those like the Merseburg wheel that were claimed to be perpetual motion machines.

I don’t know. I think Fletcher is onto something even if the advancements we take for granted today might not have been as apparent back then into making it into an automobile were taken into consideration.

[daxwc]

One thing that never came to me before is that by putting the small pulley on the floor right underneath the axle he was actually creating a 3 to 1 ratio advantage just by doing that.

PS: not only that but some could claim Bessler going around the axle of the wheel is another pulley.

[Robinhood46]

One thing that never came to me before is that by putting the small pulley on the floor right underneath the axle he was actually creating a 3 to 1 ratio advantage just by doing that.

PS: not only that but some could claim Bessler going around the axle of the wheel is another pulley.

Pulleys only create a ratio advantage if the pulley itself moves.
Adding pulleys that are fixed, increases the length of the rope needed to go round all the additional pulleys, but doesn't increase the distance the rope travels to cause the lifting.
The ratio advantage from multiple pulleys is due to the shortening of the distance between the pulleys, as they get nearer to each other.
The ratio is caused by the increased distance pulled, because of the number of ropes (the same rope) between the two pulleys. For 4 ropes to be shortened by 10 cm the rope needs to be pulled 40.
Fixed pulleys create no advantage whatsoever and are only useful for changing the direction of the actions involved.