The two directional wheel

[justabil]

Didn't bessler at some point say that the the wheel that could rotate in both directions was a total different technology than the previous one directional one?

If so,,does anyone here believe that Bessler found TWO distinct designs that worked?

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Bill....I think he stated that they worked on different principles. It seems that once the prime mover is known, it can work with differing applications. Looking through MT, it seems some of what he is saying would actually apply to some of those designs and they are very different in and of themselves.


Steve

[jim_mich]

It is my opinion that the force developed by the prime mover mechanism lifted weights out-of-balance on the one way wheels and that the same force was directed in a rotational way to turn the two way wheels. If a force can lift weights OOB then it seems that when redirected it could also push a wheel in a circle. The two way wheels were balanced when not turning. It's unknown if the weights in the two way wheels were OOB when turning.

[primemignonite]

juastabil,

Brother Bessler's bi-directional wheels were strictly to-the-purpose of demonstrations.

As others have nicely accounted times before on the Board, basically, it was to counter ignorant accusations of those who voiced suspicions of wind-up sorts of hidden motive power contained.

The double thickness and larger diameters of the "bi's", were to allow for more work to be shown as done. Also and more key, his having to package all up against possible predations of the snorting curious, accounted for his having to make serious design compromises, and thereby considerably lessening demonstratable power capability, out of simple, mean necessity.

The accusations hurled at him to the effect that the wheels did not produce 'much power', must have rankled him deeply, knowing full-well what the actual truth-of-the-matter was.

Yes, he gave verbal assurances that his wheels were, indeed, capable of much more output, but for the naturally scoffing (and minor incredulous, even) they were apparently dismissed 'till seen tangibly, which was not-to-be, sadly.

Hope that clarifies things.

James

[DrWhat]

Although I believe Bessler, my question to the forum would be: is it possible to have a simple spring wound wheel, and to create a mechanism that when the wheel is stopped, and turned in the opposite way, a gearing mechanism and some sort of latch engages the wheel to go the opposite way, using the same wound spring (still under tension)?

You would need a heavy pendulum inside to create an opposing force for the long coiled up spring to push or pull against.

Sort of like having those wound up toy cars, but if wound, released, stopped under tension and pulled in reverse such that the car goes backwards?


Not explained well but I hope you get my meaning.

[Fletcher]

A couple of things here - a spring needs an anchor point, something stationary to leverage/push off - you can do this with a hanging counter weight [artificial gravity] but this fly's in the face of what Bessler said - "everything must by necessity go around with the wheel" which would rule out MT13 type contraptions - if you could achieve this then you would need to wind the spring periodically & that is problematic in the face of the long duration test.

I seriously doubt that a wind-up wheel could release force in one direction then the wheel be stopped & work again in the opposite direction whilst the spring continued to release force - if I were going to attempt this I would probably look at using an extra gear [like reverse cog in a car transmission] but then I still need something for the spring to push off & rewind it & have a massive storage capacity to have it turn away day & night for weeks on end.

Now I'm well aware of wind up clocks that can go for a year or so but they can't & don't do any serious work in the bargain which would drain the springs stored force quick time, IMO.

[DrWhat]

Fletcher, I agree with your comments. And I also agree that from evidence Bessler did not use a wound up spring system.

I was just thinking however that if you could devise a reversing mechanism for a spring wound system, even if you have an external (fixed) anchor point, then it could give some clues to Bessler's reversing mechanism. And may be a small step towards thinking how Bessler designed his.

You would need to stop it and reverse it in the same way observers did for Bessler's bi-directional wheel. Maybe a jolt would switch a latch somehow.

So not recreating his whole wheel, just trying to discover this particular mechanism.

[Fletcher]

I think you have to take the witness reports & evidence at face value - that is, the bi-directional wheels were stopped with some amount of force opposing the direction of rotation whereupon they stood still & balanced - but, once given an initiating push in any direction would accelerate away & obviously have asymmetric torque to the side of the wheel going down.

This imo suggests that the Prime Mover [or individual Prime Movers] was one directional for one-way wheels & a second Prime Mover(s) was employed to operate in the opposing direction - this means they can only generate a shifting force in one direction - this also would explain the almost doubled width of the bi-directional wheels i.e. opposing mechs weren't interspaced in the same plane but side by side on the same axle so that they could move about within the wheel & not interfere with the other opposing sets at all.

This then raises the question asked here many times - how did the wheel once given a shove overcome the mechs & Prime Mover(s) in opposition ? - either the opposition mechs still generated a force while turning backwards [but less force] & so the favorable direction won out or they were tucked/folded away into neutral positioning so that they could not be deployed & generate a shifting force until the direction was reversed.

FWIW, I cannot see a multi functional & multi direction Prime Mover Force in Bessler's wheels able to operate in any direction once the wheel was given an impressed force in any direction - the only conceivable way this could be so imo is if the wheel Prime Mover was a thermal engine [e.g. sterling] as Bill suggests it might be & it was connected to the internal wheel axle via a crank [like a peddle car] - then it could just develop force & turn a crank which would change linear motion to circular motion in any direction - but, one of the reasons I have trouble seeing this application is that the thermal engine would also need an anchor point to push off just like the wound spring & another that at the reported RPM's & doing work I can't imagine how the thermal expansion & contraction required from ambient temperatures could happen rapidly enough over a sufficient temperature range to generate enough power, but that's only my opinion based on pretty scant knowledge & no practical experience of such systems, so I leave the door ajar for the inventive types amongst us to walk right thru ;)

[primemignonite]

Fletcher writes:

"I think you have to take the witness reports & evidence at face value - that is, the bi-directional wheels were stopped with some amount of force opposing the direction of rotation whereupon they stood still & balanced - but, once given an initiating push in any direction would accelerate away & obviously have asymmetric torque to the side of the wheel going down."

True, in all respects.

Continuing, he allows:

"This imo suggests that the Prime Mover [or individual Prime Movers] was one directional for one-way wheels & a second Prime Mover(s) was employed to operate in the opposing direction - this means they can only generate a shifting force in one direction - this also would explain the almost doubled width of the bi-directional wheels i.e. opposing mechs weren't interspaced in the same plane but side by side on the same axle so that they could move about within the wheel & not interfere with the other opposing sets at all."

It might very well. That inference is one easily made and has been by many speculators upon our subject, however, the reality of it is more interesting. The mechanism of the bi-directionals was two-way inherently, and did not need to be doubled in order to function; it was far more elegant than that. To quote myself from above/earlier regarding this:

"The double thickness and larger diameters of the "bi's", were to allow for more work to be shown as done. Also and more key, his having to package all up against possible predations of the snorting curious, accounted for his having to make serious design compromises, and thereby considerably lessening demonstratable power capability, out of simple, mean necessity."

And here we read:

"This then raises the question asked here many times - how did the wheel once given a shove overcome the mechs & Prime Mover(s) in opposition ? - either the opposition mechs still generated a force while turning backwards [but less force] & so the favorable direction won out or they were tucked/folded away into neutral positioning so that they could not be deployed & generate a shifting force until the direction was reversed."

The correct answer to this is: because it was a very clever device, one veritably making A FOOL of Mother Nature at just the right time, at just the right place and every time operated. This humorous circumstance could not have been anticipated by the natural philosophers of Bessler's day, and certainly is not by our own mechanistically-primed physicists, and, or so it seems, to be missed over and over by searchers for it outside those other two, here presently.

And finally, he admits to us that:

"FWIW, I cannot see a multi functional & multi direction Prime Mover Force in Bessler's wheels able to operate in any direction once the wheel was given an impressed force in any direction - the only conceivable way this could be so imo is if the wheel Prime Mover was a thermal engine [e.g. sterling] as Bill suggests it might be & it was connected to the internal wheel axle via a crank [like a peddle car] - then it could just develop force & turn a crank which would change linear motion to circular motion in any direction - but, one of the reasons I have trouble seeing this application is that the thermal engine would also need an anchor point to push off just like the wound spring & another that at the reported RPM's & doing work I can't imagine how the thermal expansion & contraction required from ambient temperatures could happen rapidly enough over a sufficient temperature range to generate enough power, but that's only my opinion based on pretty scant knowledge & no practical experience of such systems, so I leave the door ajar for the inventive types amongst us to walk right thru ;)"

[One can "see" if perceptive enough! This being but but an echo of the long-past stated obvious?]

All very well and good and not at all unreasonable, but . . . IT DID, and with no "thermal", the quasi-miraculous product being energy coming to us sans mundane exchanges of heat, excepting for bearings - a mere tertiary order loss.

[In this realm of Bessler's, thinking 'hot' is getting really cold!]

While operating and opened, Bessler's device displayed every appearance of creating energy on-the-spot! Probably one of the various reasons he thought THE POWER to be of Divine origin, and a gift to not be frittered away gratis to those ingrate snorters, and peasant pests.

Hope that fills-in some gaps.

James

[Fletcher]

The mechanism of the bi-directionals was two-way inherently, and did not need to be doubled in order to function; it was far more elegant than that. To quote myself from above/earlier regarding this: ...

The correct answer to this is: because it was a very clever device, one veritably making A FOOL of Mother Nature at just the right time, at just the right place and every time operated.

While operating and opened, Bessler's device displayed every appearance of creating energy on-the-spot!

Well, I could agree with the last statement but the others would require a greater burden of proof before I might become a convert.

Consider this .. the first bi-directional wheel turned at 40 RPM while the next [Kassell] was marginally larger diameter but turned at about 2/3rds that RPM [26] - allowing for some detuning to make the wheel more reliable for the long duration test then this seems a large drop off in max RPM achieved unloaded - yet both seemingly worked on similar principles [gentle banging noises on the descending side].

Could it be conceivable that dual mechs [rather than one multi-directional Prime Mover(s)] actually slowed the wheel down & didn't just add extra inertia to overcome so that it accelerated more slowly than a one-way wheel but would still achieve its inherent design speed limits otherwise ? What conditions might lead to this observed slowing of RPM if dual mech system were employed ?

Prime questions wouldn't you agree ?

[primemignonite]

Fletcher wrote thusly: "Well, I could agree with the last statement but the others would require a greater burden of proof before I might become a convert."

From my point of stance it isn't necessary for others to become converts. It would serve no purpose.

And there was: "Could it be conceivable that . . ."

Anything is conceivable but not always concordant with what's sensible. If the mechanisms had actually been dual-opposed, the thing could never have turned; it would have constituted a mechanical nonsense [a chimera], and if in such an arrangement one had been disconnected in favor of the other, the mechanism for effecting it would have been an orgy of mad mechanica, to say nothing of adding frictional problems aplenty, these due mostly to the extra burden of carrying of it's other half as dead weight.

Truly! The Siamese Twins of Perpetual Motion that never 'went', nor ever were!

With such things Mother Nature is not amused, and certainly is not to be fooled, which is the very trick itself to accomplish. Once done, she exacts no penalty, but rather, returns a smile, and perpetually [i.e. lunch is FREE!].

[Kept ever-in-mind must be that "carpenter's boy." In conjuring-up wild, complex schemes of supposed operation, he is usually forgotten!]

And finally was there read: "Prime questions wouldn't you agree ?"

This last thing would seem to be so, but alas, not to much that's purposeful, seemingly.

James

[John Collins]

Could it be conceivable that dual mechs [rather than one multi-directional Prime Mover(s)] actually slowed the wheel down & didn't just add extra inertia to overcome so that it accelerated more slowly than a one-way wheel but would still achieve its inherent design speed limits otherwise ? What conditions might lead to this observed slowing of RPM if dual mech system were employed ?

I must point you to my Savonius windmill experiments described in my book, Fletch. One Savonius mounted on its vertical axis started spontaneously when placed in a current of wind. With two Savonius windmills mounted on one axel but each designed to turn in the opposite direction to its twin and connected to each other, they each tug against the other and therefore remain stationary. When the whole structure is given a nudge in either direction they begin to turn and accelerate but only up to about half their speed when not connected to each other.

I know I've posted this many times but I think its worth saying again that I am convinced that Bessler's first thoughts in trying to answer his enemy's assertions that the machine was wound up, would be to investigate the possibility of putting two mechanisms within the same wheel casing, but the second one designed to turn the wheel the other way. It was the obvious and simplest route to a solution for him. Of course if it didn't work then we would have to consider your idea James, but to me the simplest idea is probably more likely the right one.

If the doubled Savonius windmill demonstration has any validity then the bi-directional Bessler wheels would have been much easier to stop than the one way ones. I say this because it is true of the Savonius wheel experiment. The acceleration was also slower in the doubled Savonius windmill.

JC

[bluesgtr44]

Anything is conceivable but not always concordant with what's sensible. If the mechanisms had actually been dual-opposed, the thing could never have turned; it would have constituted a mechanical nonsense [a chimera], and if in such an arrangement one had been disconnected in favor of the other, the mechanism for effecting it would have been an orgy of mad mechanica, to say nothing of adding frictional problems aplenty, these due mostly to the extra burden of carrying of it's other half as dead weight.

Truly! The Siamese Twins of Perpetual Motion that never 'went', nor ever were!

Just an opinion here, James.....that's a pretty big statement to try and back up! Unless I am missing something in what you are presenting in this, I fail to see anything to back this up with.....physically/mechanically or otherwise. Once the impression is made in a direction for the wheel...one mechanism moves/shifts into a position more towards the perimeter and the other, which is on the other side....will shift into a neutral position and its weight would just be applied to the wheel. Now, just because I don't see it.....doesn't mean it's not there....it just means I don't see it!

The process of elimination can be a difficult one when applying it to something as this, where we have scant information....actual demonstrations and witness reports, we are left with personal deductions and hypothesis.

If you can prove that the "back to back" set up is impossible, I am all ears! It's just that I need indisputable proof.....Why?

"Finding the right solution, is usually a function of asking the right questions." Albert Einstein


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

Hey James....I really could care less about the bi-directional application. That will fall into place once we find out how to just, simply....make it go...in one direction. So, I think I am not one to make much synopsis on the workings of the bi-directional wheels...I just don't spend much time with it. My point was that I cannot eliminate anything without positive, conclusive evidence.

I like and appreciate your input...I am just not as gutsy as you in what my personal perceptions might be. Again, just because I don't see it...doesn't mean it isn't there.


Steve

[jim_mich]

Anything is conceivable but not always concordant with what's sensible. If the mechanisms had actually been dual-opposed, the thing could never have turned; it would have constituted a mechanical nonsense [a chimera], and if in such an arrangement one had been disconnected in favor of the other, the mechanism for effecting it would have been an orgy of mad mechanica, to say nothing of adding frictional problems aplenty, these due mostly to the extra burden of carrying of it's other half as dead weight.

Assume for the moment that when two swinging weights on a rotating wheel are connected together in a particular fashion within a mechanism that they swing faster and with more force than might normal be expected based on conservation of energy law. Also assume that when the wheel is rotated in reverse they swing slower and with less force. These weights on the reverse rotating wheel slow down and then more or less hold a particular position on the wheel. If the wheel speed varies a little then inertia will cause them to swing a little and in the process consume a little bit of energy causing them to stop swinging again.

But when the wheel turns in a forward direction these swinging weights add energy to their swing making the weights swing faster and more vigorously. This in turn gets translated to the wheel (either by direct inertial push or by lifting weights OOB) thus pushing the wheel faster until the swinging weights reach a natural resonate frequency.

Thus when two opposite mechanisms are added to the wheel then the weights in the forward mechanism swing vigorously and produce power output while the weights in the reversed mechanism fail to swing and become stagnant unless the wheel's speed or direction is changed.

This means that no special disconnect is needed to cause one mechanism to work while the other becomes idle. The very way in which the mechanism are constructed causes them to gain energy and swing faster in one direction and to loose energy and swing slower in the other direction. The reverse rotating weights thus stop swinging while the forward rotating weights increase in speed until they hit their resonate swing frequency based on their dimensions and weight, much like any swinging pendulum tends to swing at a fixed frequency.

In this special case the weights gain energy when they swing slower than their resonate frequency. They loose energy whenever forced to swing on a reverse rotating wheel and thus they simply stop swinging.

Of course all is conjecture until demonstrated by a real physical working wheel.