Gravity Wheel -or- Motion Wheel

[Grimer]

The Keenie can be viewed as relying on a similar principle to that of the cinematograph.

Films (movies) rely on the persistence of vision.

Keenie relies on the persistence of motion, the slow motion of the long period compound pendulum

The single weight short period pendulum delivers some of its energy as an impulse to the compound pendulum and uses the rest in recoil (rebound) to get back to a reset position before the compound pendulum has time to slow down. Back in its reset position the wheel is once more perfectly balanced and comprises a pendulum of infinite period. In the absence of friction it will rotate indefinitely.

In the simplest case the rotation energy is then bled off till the wheel is brought to a halt and the cycle is repeated. This simplest case is Proof of Principle. To move from a stationary balanced wheel to a unbalanced wheel and back to a rotating balanced wheel is proof that the gravitational wind can be harnessed to perform mechanical work.

I was making the mistake of trying to get the single weight to bring the larger weight to a reset position in one go and failing to make use of the single weight's superior speed/acceleration performance. In Bessler's terms I was being greedy. One has to break the lift up into small pieces as in the integral calculus. This is the way that a small weight can "lift" a larger weight.

There are many examples where superior speed of action wins out. For example,
A general has an army far more mobile than his enemy's. He rushes a huge force to a particular point in the line for a breakthrough. Lacking the same mobility his enemy cannot defend against this.

I'm sure members can think of many other examples.

see also:-
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 301#107301

cloud camper wrote:
"Why can't we have a balanced wheel that becomes unbalanced when
rotation is started and oscillates from balanced to unbalanced?"

The Keenie oscillates between balanced and dynamically unbalanced.

[rlortie]

Grimer,

One short question:

Has your builder ever built you a "keenie" so that you can verify that which your write regarding its alleged possibilities?

Ralph

[cloud camper]

High Fives Frank - I believe we have the solution for both the Keenie and BW.

The oscillation between balanced and unbalanced conditions creates our dynamically changing imbalance situation as required by physics to create wheel rotation.

If our wheel starts out balanced and with a small push rapidly becomes unbalanced, we initiate rotation building inertia. Then at the maximum unbalance point our mechanism (say 3 o'clock) begins to translate the weights back to a balanced wheel condition.

But upon achieving the balanced condition once again at 6:00 we have considerable inertia built up. But at the 6:00 position, we are effectively back to our start condition as the wheel is balanced again but still have inertia that continues rotation. We have lost no overall vertical PE. The built up inertia is then "trapped".

Per physics we cannot have wheel rotation with a either a continually balanced or continually unbalanced configuration. This creates only a static situation for which our wheel will either never rotate or keel and stop.

I don't pretend to understand the Keenie that well but applying the same principle will yield the same results. Nice work!

[jim_mich]

Golly, there are so many fallacies here that it boggles my mind. The Keenie wheel did not use pendulums. It only had weights that slid in and out along slanted slots. I have no idea where you guys get the idea that the Keenie wheel had pendulums.

Gravity is a force. It is not like wind. Wind has mass. Moving mass has energy. Wind hitting the blades of a wind mill causes inertial energy of the moving wind mass to transfer to the blades of the wind mill. Gravity force is simply a force. It does not have mass. The mass must be supplied by the wheel. Any energy gained by a falling weight must be re-supplied to lift the weight back upward against the constant force of gravity.

Bessler was taunting Wagner about using rising and falling weights. Bessler told Wagner that in order to use rising and falling weight, a great craftsman would need to have a lighter weight lift a heavier weight. Obviously this cannot be done. Wagner had just finished a long winded document about how equal weights could not cause wheel rotation. Bessler went one step farther and said that to make a wheel produce forceful rotation, a lighter weight would need to lift a heavier weight. Bessler had worked for ten years with rising and falling weights and he had learned that this was foolish thinking. Bessler was ridiculing Wagner's thinking that Bessler's wheel was turned by rising and falling weights. Bessler plainly stated that the weights in his wheel gained force from their motion. Inertia and momentum are the result of motion. Gravity had nothing to do with the source of the force that turned Bessler's wheel. Gravity was the start-up force for the one-way wheels and was in intermediary conservative force used in the one-way wheels, but gravity was not the energy source for any of Bessler's wheels. A lighter weight would need to lift a heavier weight for gravity to turn a wheel. Bessler was making fun of Wagner's thinking that rising and falling weights were the source of the forces that turned Bessler's wheel.

Because of the English language, discussing Bessler's wheel gets confusing. The English words 'weight' and 'weights' have multiple but similar meanings. A wheel turned by 'weights' does not always imply a wheel turned by gravity. Weight force does not always imply gravity force, it can also imply inertia of a heavy weight. Inertia and momentum imply the same thing, except from different perspectives, with inertia usually implying resistance to motion, and momentum implying continuing force due to motion.

If interconnected weights on a wheel can pass momentum from weight to weight such that a slower moving weight passes momentum to a faster moving weight, then the ectropy (available harnessable energy) of the wheel system is increased, while the total momentum of the wheel remains unchanged. The paired weights gain energy from their motions. Once the weight-pair gains usable force due to their inter-connected motions, then that increased force can be used to rotate the whole wheel assembly. The weights then swap roles and the cycle repeats.

Normally a slower moving weight never passes momentum to a faster moving weight. A special unique arrangement of interconnected moving weights within a rotating environment is required for this unusual event to happen. Once the weights change speeds then one weight gains usable force, and the force can lift the weight out-of-balance and gravity can turn the wheel, as Bessler did in his early one-way wheels. Or a second pair of interconnected weights can be added so as to cause continuous balance for the two and two weights. Each weight pair still gains force from the motions of the weights, but the force that is gained is used to push the wheel inertially forward as the weights bang against the wheel. The banging was cushioned by springs else the weights would beat the wheel to pieces. The weights hit wooden anvil blocks attached to springs attached to the wheel so as to stop the springs from twanging, and thus keep the mechanism secret.

Such a mechanism of balanced two and two weights gained force when rotated forward, but lost force when rotated rearward. The weights in the rearward rotating mechanism soon stopped their motions and simply rode stationary on the rotating wheel while the reversed mechanism with its moving/swinging weights rotated the wheel in the reverse direction.

The mechanism is such that the inner weight always moves outward as it pulls the outer weight inward. Momentum carries the weights to the ends of their motion. The weights reverse directions, either by impact or by gravity, and the weight swap roles and the cycle repeats. No energy is lost by latching or stopping the motions of the weights. Whenever the wheel is rotating then the weights always move. There is no position of rest for the weights. CF could pin the weights of the one-way wheel, but that would stop the gain of force that rotates the wheel, and the wheel would slow down, and then gravity would start the weight to moving in and out again. Once in motion, CF does not pin the weights except if the motion of the weights stops thus leaving a weight stationary outward at the rim. With the balanced wheel, CF never pins the weights and CF actually causes the weights to start moving in and out. Gravity is not needed to start the motions of the weights of the two-way always balanced wheel, nor does gravity start the rotation of the two-way wheel.

You cannot have a two-way wheel that is sometimes balanced and sometimes unbalanced, because when rotated in reverse the two mechanisms would fight each other. You could have a mechanism that locks one or the other mechanisms depending upon wheel rotational direction, but a directional sensing mechanisms is nearly impossible as far as I know. Rotating a wheel very slowing up to speed would not be sensed. From all indications, Bessler's wheel simply gained force in whichever direction it was started rotating when it reached a certain speed. If it worked simply by sensing rotational direction and then switching on or off either mechanism, then it should have become OOB as soon as the mechanism shifted in or out of operation. Instead the wheel gained rotational force only after it reached a certain minimum speed that was enough for the internal weights to start moving due to the CF becoming strong enough to overcome friction of the movable components.

[Grimer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum

A pendulum consisting of any swinging rigid body, which is free to rotate about a fixed horizontal axis is called a compound pendulum or physical pendulum

[jim_mich]

The difference between a pendulum and a wheel is a pendulum oscillates back and forth while a wheel rotates round and round. The Keenie wheel did not oscillate back and forth. It rotated round and round. Calling a turkey a chicken simply because they are both birds complicates communications. Learning to communicate in a clear and concise manner helps all of us to better understand each other.

And I repeat, the Keenie wheel did not contain a pendulum. It was a simply wheel with weights that move in and out at a slant.

[Furcurequs]

...unless the pendulum is a conical pendulum, maybe. Then it goes back and forth and round and round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conical_pendulum

Sorry. Don't mind me. ...just in a mood.

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

jim_mich, with the new patent law, you now have a year to file your patent after you've published your idea. Well, at least in the U.S. Wait, that hasn't gone into effect yet, so I'm not sure what that means.

Dwayne

[jim_mich]

I've not disclosed the whole concept, so there is no rush to file. Everything I've disclosed is found in Bessler's writings. Weights moving in and out. Weight working in pairs. Now two and two things. Springs were used, but not wind-up springs. Early wheels turned only one direction and self started. Later wheels were balanced and operated either direction with a push start. Weights gained force from moving/swinging. Weights swap roles. Weights banging. Weights interconnected with cross-bars. And Bessler making fun of Wagner's rising and falling weights. All of this was disclosed by Bessler. Obviously these facts have not been able enough for anyone to make a PM wheel since Bessler disclosed them 300 years ago, so my repeating these clues here is not enough to start the timer ticking on a patent application.

[pequaide]

In reference to the 6:15 pm post; paragraph 5.

“If interconnected weights on a wheel can pass momentum from weight to weight such that a slower moving weight passes momentum to a faster moving weight, then the ectropy (available harnessable energy) of the wheel system is increased, while the total momentum of the wheel remains unchanged. The paired weights gain energy from their motions. Once the weight-pair gains usable force due to their inter-connected motions, then that increased force can be used to rotate the whole wheel assembly. The weights then swap roles and the cycle repeats.� 

Jim I think you are about the only one still posting that thinks momentum conservation occurs in Bessler's wheel. The atomic theory agrees that molecules of gases and fluids conserve momentum by somehow our opposition thinks Bessler's wheel escaped this universal Law of Conservation of Momentum.

I think the momentum transfer was between the mass and the wheel, but at least we know which Law rules all interactions.

[Furcurequs]

Hey Jim,

I was just messing with you, mostly. We obviously all see the supposed "clues" somewhat differently. I really think it is somewhat like that psychological ink blot test. We bring our own perceptions and experiences (and, yes, maybe even mental states) to bear in our interpretations of what we see.

I thought maybe you were getting a little more detailed than the actual "clues" themselves, however, which if it were the case might show a little more of your hand than you might be ready to show - if your interpretations are actually based upon a true understanding of Bessler's wheel and/or a device or principle that would actually work, of course.

...then, again, I also see your words based upon my own ideas and experiments, too. ...lol

Anyway, I'll probably continue to just stick to my policy of not saying too much at all about my designs or any specifics about Bessler's "clues" - until I know more and am ready, of course.

Take care.

Dwayne

[cloud camper]

Jim, if the weights do not rise and fall with your concept, how do you explain JB's statements:

“But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards,� AP 329

"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise." AP 343

And "A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!� AP 291

And “A constant interchange of rise and fall, of excess and deficient weight, resulting in a living machine. Imagine how a heavy material body,
in defiance of its innate natural tendency to gravitate towards the center of the earth, could be induced to rise once more.� GB 52

Also, “The wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and climbing back up again." AP 291

Also “The inward structure is so arranged that by disposed weights once in rotation they gain force from their own swinging." PV 103.

How do the weights swing if they do not gain or lose height?

Also, "and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderous speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn must also move." PV 103.

How does the weight apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn must also move without the weight descending itself?

Also, where does the "peacock's tail" manifest "spreading itself the length and width"?

These seem like major clues not to incorporate.

[Andyb]

Every thing must retain the power of free motion.

[jim_mich]

Jim, if the weights do not rise and fall with your concept, how do you explain JB's statement that
the weights "rise up in a flash"?

Also, where does the "peacock's tail" manifest "spreading itself the length and width"?

This seems like a major clue not to incorporate.

Obviously if the weights move in and out as the wheel turns then they also rise and fall. And weight moving in and out are like a peacock causing its tail to spread out and then retract back inward.

I searched PM-AAMS for the word 'flash' and found only two instances.

Sometimes a brilliant idea would come to him in a flash of inspiration, and he'd work feverishly to get his idea translated into a working model, only to find that it remained steadfastly motionless.

The answer - "yes one can go on working comfortably in winter with my wheel singing away merrily. When other machines are snowed up, mine will go on and on. Hard frosts may reign over there - but here summer lightning flashes!".

I searched for 'rise' and found 21 instances, such as theorised and similar instances, but none that related to weights rising. I then searched for 'rising' and found 18 instances, but only 4 were related to rising weights, and all four were in John Collin's discussion about rising and falling weight being able to rotate a wheel. None were by Bessler.

So I searched Wagner's 'first' critique published in 1716. (Wagner's 'second' critique was written the year before, in 1715. I don't know why the first is labeled the second, and the second is labeled the first by John Collin's, but it does not matter.)

XXXVII.

That I did not give the speed of the wheel built by me, as Orffyreus does for his, is intentional because I cannot conceive a reason why the wheel must revolve precisely 50 times per minute and why it may not go more slowly or more quickly. The rapid and constant motion is an infallible indication that his wheel is no genuine perpetual motion machine. If the motion should originate in the superior force of the weight, then the weight cannot possibly rise up several ells immediately in a flash, indeed if it falls to the other side of the wheel and should give it a jolt, then it can hardly fall as rapidly as the underlying compartment descends. Moreover, the wheel could not run so constantly because for any perpetual motion the preponderant weight (whatever material may constitute it) on the side of the wheel which is so preponderated must be brought closer to the axis (which is impossible as extensively enlarged on above) in order that it can be more easily raised, as soon the preponderant weight is raised over the hypomochlium, thus it must cross over to the other side of the wheel and be brought to the periphery of the wheel; now the transit is stratified and the superior force distances itself further and further from the point at rest and gravitates more and more as a consequence of the principle of conveyance, thus at the same time the wheel necessarily must go more slowly, and the further the weight comes from the point at rest, the faster the wheel goes, whence it follows that the wheel can go a) not so rapidly and b) not constantly but just the opposite. Not to mention that the strong collusion, in which the weight comes to rest at the bottom of the wheel and through the turning comes to lie at the other side of the compartment, comes about, thus the running and movement of the wheel are again and again interrupted and hindered, which is well-known from similar things that have been modeled and inspected.

XVII (b) References to various points in the Merseburg tract Wagner now begins to pick through every little detail of our description, and ridicules the great patron who speaks in favour of my machine, but little does he (the Patron) care, for all of us already know well enough what lying edifices he builds, and what a stinking scumbag he is, who wallows in his own filth. Leave great men unmolested, Wagner, you foul, odorous, pig, if you wish ever to be free of disgrace! My Patron is an honourable friend, who means well to all men, but he will personally take his revenge on you, and I shall not want to be involved.

Wagner describes how he thinks my machine is constructed; he babbles about "excess weights" being snatched along, by means of "internal motive power", in a frequently-repeated cycle of up and down movements. According to him, Nature dictates that things gravitate downwards. But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards, and it is this that Wagner cannot force himself to accept. But, crazy Wagner, just note that that is indeed the case with my device. But if anyone should presume to say that my Wheel is definitely such-and-such without having seen it, he is a fool and a fantasizer of the first order. He deserves to have a donkey's tail affixed to his lying rump.

Note the two emboldened text, the first by Wagner, and the second the response by Bessler. Note that when Bessler talked of weight rising in a flash, it was in response to Wagner's talking about the speed with which the weights must rise if the wheel were to rotate at 50 RPM.

Wagner had a same thinking as I've seen here on the forum, that the speed of a falling weight is limited, and cannot fall from the top of the wheel to the bottom if the wheel is rotating too fast. This is a wrong thinking, which I've discussed in the past. It also assumes that falling weights rotate the wheel.

Bessler's response was that indeed the weights do move back upward in a flash. In other words the weight moved back upward (in a flash) at the fast 50 RPM speed of the Merseburg (3rd) wheel. Bessler then adds the note that if you assume the wheel is such and such without having seen it, you deserve a donkey's tail.

[justsomeone]

Jim, why not highlight the next sentence from Bessler?