Not a Gravity Wheel?

[Michael]

I have found a number of quotes in John Collins new Bessler authored book that eludes to the concept that the wheel was not driven by gravity.

Page 218
Such machines (not his machine) as require wind, water, weights... for their operation (no matter if this operation lasts many years), do not possess the principle...internally, rather externnally to themselves.

This last sentence is important I feel because gravity is an external force.

There is another quote that I'll post when I find it, unfortunately my time is limited at the moment, where he states how mathematicians have argued against a self propelling machine, that machines require an external force to operate them, and he is saying his does just the opposite, it is self propelling, not requiring an external source.

Reg.

Mike

[Jonathan]

It is hard to say, though the source of gravity is external, it acts inside the machine.

[John Collins]

Just a quick comment. Gravity was poorly understood at that time. Newton had only written "Principia" about 30 years earlier, and that was in Latin and few people had actually read it by Bessler's time. Gravity was described as "a heaviness of objects" and the cause of "heaviness" wasn't ascribed to an external force but rather to the objects themselves so Gravity would not have been recognised as an external force.

John C.

[Michael]

I don't agee with that at all John. People aren't stupid. The math of gravity wasn't complete but the force of gravity was well known for thousands of years (I shudder even saying that because of course gravity has always been known of ever since the first thing dropped a thing). It use to be called gravitas (to the grave) before Newton. Newton didn't ereka the concept that gravity was part of the planet. Aware of the planetary math and aware of gravity itself are two entirely different things. As well there are quotes in your book that you put out that state gravity wasn't the source, that the source was internal, unto the machine itself. I'll look today and try to find the other one.Though I do want to state that as per what you said that some regarded the weight of object as being the source of gravity goes further to the idea that Bessler didn't use gravity because of his statement that the wheel worked without wind, weight, etc.

Reg.

Mike

[Georg Künstler]

How can you get a system to swing periodically, increasing ? With an internal or an external force ? My opinion is, both is possible, and also you can get it self propelling if forces are used 'Wrong'. Think of the resonance dead of mechanical devices. Everyone tries to eleminate this 'wrong' forces. But this exactly is the way to success.

the future has begun

Georg

[Stewart]

Hi Michael

I agree with John. I don't think most people at the time acknowledged that there was a gravity force, but simply that an object had weight and would fall to the ground (this being a property of the object itself).

It use to be called gravitas (to the grave) before Newton.

Can you explain this? As far as I'm aware gravitas is the latin word for "heaviness" or "seriousness", derived from the word gravis meaning "heavy, serious". That's all it meant and it had nothing to do with a gravity force. I think it was only Newton that later coined the word gravity from gravitas as a description of the force.

As well there are quotes in your book that you put out that state gravity wasn't the source, that the source was internal, unto the machine itself.

I don't remember any quotes stating that gravity is not the source of power. Again as far as most people at the time were concerned, the weight of an object was an internal property and so his Wheel would have been described as not relying on external forces.

Bessler didn't use gravity because of his statement that the wheel worked without wind, weight, etc.

Bessler has never said that his wheels didn't use weights, he said they didn't use "Cymbal-Weights" or hanging weights that required raising.

If Bessler's Wheel didn't use gravity then it would turn if mounted in a horizontal orientation also - and I'm sure Bessler would have demonstrated this as it would be a far more impressive.

It's my current view that Bessler's Wheel is a gravity wheel only. I used to think there was a posibility that magnets might be a secondary force, but now, especially in light of Jim's centripetal/centrifugal force calculation, I think it works using gravity and CF force only. What are your current thoughts?

All the best
Stewart

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Steward,
the wheel is working with gravity, magnets, springs and centrifugal force in any combination you like it. There are thousand ways to solve it.
But all of this had in common: fast up and slow down.

the future has begun

Georg

[Michael]

Hi Stewart,

My current thought are I don't know if Bessler's wheel was a gravity wheel or not. Looking at it both ways he never says it ran on gravity, and some of the quotes in John's books can definately be interpreted as if he were saying it did not run on the heavy (gravity) principle of weight. As I said I'll try to find the other quote. I think that, either way, it's just been assumed that the wheel ran on gravity.

Reg.

Michael

[Michael]

Hi Stewart,

Scanning the book, still haven't come across that one quote. The quote I did put up is good though and I'll elaborate more tommorrow when I bring the book with me to library. For now I want to cover just a couple of points.

I don't believe that when people from a few hundred years ago and further said that the reason objects fell was because of their heavyness, it meant that the reason they fell was inherent soley with the object itself. If that is really what they thought, then one would have to assume that an object that was heavy would also move to any other object, in any kind of direction. Obviously this is not the case and as I said people, no matter what time frame, are not stupid. They would have to have noted that the earth was an intricate part of an objects falling to it, and if the power was not inherent soley to the earth, then there was some kind of downward force from the outside that was pushing objects to the earth. Newton was biased to an outside force because he couldn't fathom how something like gravity could be a pull. Regardless, the math of gravity which relates to a planets mass, and acknowledging an invisible force makes objects fall to the earth, aren't the exact same thing. So the fact that the math wasn't fully established until Newton is irrelevant. Newton wasn't the only one working on these things as well. Gravity was refered to as gravitas in some circles.

You state you don't remember any quotes where Bessler said Gravity was not the source of gravity. There are equally no quotes that state gravity was the source for the machine either. What Bessler does state is the motive force DID NOT come from outside of the machine, that it is internal, and with the quote I provided, and which I'll elaborate on more tommorrow, he gives examples of items of machines that require the use of an outside force to set them, and says no. Not like this. One of these items is weights.

Reg.

Mike

[Stewart]

Hi Michael

I think this is the quote you mean...

Take from John Collins' book of Bessler's "Das Triumphans..." PAGE 218-219:

And so a definition distinction is to be made between the terms “perpetual” and “eternal”. But “perpetual” my device certainly is in the sense that it is not a clockwork mechanism which requires the use of springs which need to be wound up again or weights which need to be raised up again continually – even if the intervals involved are as long as you like. (This has already been adequately explained.) For such machines as require wind, water, weights or springs for their operation (no matter if this operation lasts many years) do not possess the principle of motion internally, rather externally to themselves. They are not per se “mobile”, rather per accidens, so that motion is not inherent to the machine, but to the contingent aspect associated with it, with the result that should this be lacking, the machine would stand still, incapable of moving itself or a grain of dust. Such machines can, then, only be called Perpetual Motion as an abuse of language, just as it would be were I to use the term “perpetual motion” to describe the continued movement of the water screw, the press and the boxes of stones which, I described earlier, I attached to my machine, and which would continue to move via my device, as long as their material endured. (For we are here talking, again, about “accidental” rather than “innate” motion.)

Bessler is quite clearly talking about weights on a rope/chain that need to be raised back up when they reach the floor like in a grandfather clock.

You state you don't remember any quotes where Bessler said Gravity was not the source of gravity. There are equally no quotes that state gravity was the source for the machine either.

You are quite right there are no quotes in AP or DT that say gravity was the source of power - I never said there were, but you said: "As well there are quotes in your [John's] book that you put out that state gravity wasn't the source".

The only reference to the word "gravitas" that I can find is in DT and that is used in the context of "center of gravity":

NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end 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. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

Bessler doesn't mention gravity in the sense we know it today (Newton) - it wasn't a generally excepted view, or of importance so why would he. He does, however, refer to objects/weights falling which is the important thing, whether you view this effect as being caused by the objects innate "heaviness" or a "gravitational force" is irrelevant. The fact is it will behave in the same way anywhere on the planet at any time - you don't have to set it up in a river, or wait for a strong gust of wind, or have human intervention to raise a weight or wind a spring - there is no external influence.

Gravity was refered to as gravitas in some circles.

The word "gravitas" came first, meaning "heaviness". Newton made up the word "gravity" as a name for the force that he theorised pulled objects towards each other.

All the best
Stewart

[Michael]

Hi Stewart,

>As well there are quotes in your [John's] book that you put out that state gravity wasn't the source".

I shouldn't have worded it like that. It's all a matter of interpretation, and there are quotes that can be interpretated to mean it didn't run on the same principle of heavyness that machines that use weights do. In one way he says his first machines used weight, but then says not as an extention to the machine. It could be that he meant not gravity, simply because there are other principles of physics that can be used from a weight other than gravity, and he did say the motive force was internal. I'm not sure what you mean by your gravitas section, I thought I already covered that. I admit you have a good point. I am not saying no, I am just saying maybe.

Reg.

Mike

[Jonathan]

"Obviously this is not the case and as I said people, no matter what time frame, are not stupid."
I must disagree here, it is my experience that all people have been quite stupid throughout history, with few exceptions. For example, Aristotle is viewed as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, but his thoughts on gravity are just stupid (of course we have the benefit of hindsight): if a heavy weight falls faster than a light one, then you would expect that each grain in a bag full of sand would fall slower than the whole. But since the whole is made of other bits of sand, then the whole bag must fall slower than itself.
But I've digressed from the topic. If we just assume that it was not gravity which turned his wheel, then what do you think turned it, Michael?

[Michael]

You didn't read the whole thread Jonathan?

Reg.

Mike

[Jonathan]

I did, and there wasn't a clear answer. You said you think it may not be gravity, and vaguely said it could be self propelling. But what does that mean, specifically?

[Michael]

Hi Jonathan,

My main issue was I think it's been thought to be gravity, but there is no written evidence either way. I could think of a few things actually,

For weights, inertia. Possibly magnetism but people don't seem to like discussing that.
A compressable gas. I think its okay to discuss these things because all Bessler says really is its motive force is internal. If a gas was made to compress, say by a combination of a falling weight hitting chamber, or by slow rubbing friction, and the expansion force was used, do you think the chamber could be sufficiantly cooled by running it though a vessle of water, so the gas chamber would reach a lower state allowing it to gain a little bit of temprature rise from the ambient? Just musing.

Reg.

Mike