The secret behind Bessler's wheel...

[eccentrically1]

But you can't know for sure it's not the secondary, non-prime mover mechanism. Any mechanism will do for the weights and levers. Even Raj's. They aren't the prime mover. Bessler said one of the MT illustrations would work with additional structures; 'the prime mover isn't seen' in another. Any of the MT's would work with a prime mover. What was the prime mover? It wasn't gravity. It had to have been something besides gravity, external to the wheel.

[Ed]

I don't know what Raj has discovered

Raj doesn't know what Raj has or has not discovered. He did exactly as I predicted he would. He got a little positive reinforcement for his latest idea, and then it was off to the patent office. He doesn't care to vet any of his ideas prior to running to the patent office, and now he says he can take his time, to savor his perceived success, but for how long? I can only guess he is only days away...

[raj]

I have asked no one to stop searching his own wheel.
GOOD LUCK. It's a free world. I hope you will all, each of you, show us your wheels when you find them, here on bessler wheel.com.

My search is over . I am showing here, my wheel, NOT bessler wheel.
Has any of you seen bessler wheel??? So why compare bessler wheel with mine?

At least I have the guts to show openly what my wheel design looks like.
Show me yours,if you have the guts too.

Raj

[ovaron]

Can someone enlighten me what "prime mover" means? Where does Bessler talk about a "prime mover"? If "Primum mobile" is what is translated to "prime mover" than it's a wrong translation. Primum mobile is an abbreviation of Primum perpetuum mobile (first PM).

[Fletcher]

But you can't know for sure it's not the secondary, non-prime mover mechanism. Any mechanism will do for the weights and levers. Even Raj's. They aren't the prime mover. Bessler said one of the MT illustrations would work with additional structures; 'the prime mover isn't seen' in another. Any of the MT's would work with a prime mover. What was the prime mover? It wasn't gravity. It had to have been something besides gravity, external to the wheel.

The debate is forever raging on - was it gravity only (science says no) or a replenishable source of energy placed it the wheel, or taken from the ambient environment, as you've said.

Science has the upper hand about 'gravity only' until the axioms underpinning the scientific conclusions are proven fallible or at the very least incomplete, if that can ever be done in this context.

Even though I know this I still look in odd corners, trying to break the circular nature of the 'Laws'. Futile fishing probably, but what a worthy catch if it could be done. And not helped by not being able to come up with a credible alternate power source, though I note that ovyyus has pretty much nailed one in the realms. But then I would be forced to believe that Bessler was an entire fraud which I'm not quite ready to do.

As for Raj's device, I'm glad for him that his search is over, and that he shares everything here openly. My search is not over as I look for that Prime Mover that allows "sustained imbalance".

[Fletcher]

Can someone enlighten me what "prime mover" means? Where does Bessler talk about a "prime mover"? If "Primum mobile" is what is translated to "prime mover" than it's a wrong translation. Primum mobile is an abbreviation of Primum perpetuum mobile (first PM).

http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... =Portal:MT

"No. 15: This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight."

- Johann Bessler

[John Collins]

Is Raj able to patent his design if he has already put it into the public domain?

JC

[raj]

The answer is a definite"YES".

The patent application has been made prior to public disclosure.

All my drawings showing numbered parts are already patent applied drawing prior disclosure.

Fail safe has been in vigor all the time.

Raj

[raj]

Wasting time discussing prime mover is like making mountain out of mole hill.
Basically, a prime mover, as the name suggests, is nothing more than that part of a mechanical system that is activated first, to get everything moving.

When it comes to my own Auto Motion Wheel concept, the prime mover is the flywheel itself.
When the flywheel is given the initial push or pull to rotate a full rotation or more, the flywheel rotation activate the whole mechanical system, the heavy disc lifting the lower pendulum upwards from the six o'clock position and the higher pendulum swinging downwards to the six o'clock position, their swinging constrained to be half swing By the ratchet system, on the clockwise side of the wheels, creating asymmetry of torque,time and motion of different parts.
The rest is anyone guess. I leave to you all.

Raj

[Fletcher]

I am taking my time to produce a physical model.

I am in no rush. Time will show that my Auto Motion Wheel concept breaks the first law of thermodynamics, repeating Bessler's feat 300 years ago ( 1717 to 2017).

Raj

Looking forward to seeing how the model works out Raj. Your confidence is high.

I read your comments about the Prime Mover being the inertia of the flywheel in the context of your wheel design.

Basically, a prime mover, as the name suggests, is nothing more than that part of a mechanical system that is activated first, to get everything moving.

My leaning is that the 'Prime Mover' in Bessler's wheels wasn't the inertia of the system once activated, but a 'sustained imbalance' actually caused by a mechanical sub-system within the wheel (additional structures as per MT48). These could be used in conjunction with almost any of the MT's because they were the secret to 'gravity only' PM.

In that they were arranged to move and cause an imbalance of forces - it is inherent then that because they were affected by gravity to move themselves then they also effected the wheel proper CoM/CoG, in conjunction with their main 'influencer' role - and so by deduction probably didn't always need a secondary OOB system cobbled to them in every case to be a PMM. But without the Prime Mover geometry nothing was sustained.

Anyways, all the best with the proof of concept build.

[ovyyus]

...though I note that ovyyus has pretty much nailed one in the realms. But then I would be forced to believe that Bessler was an entire fraud which I'm not quite ready to do.

The question of fraud will remain unanswered while Bessler's secret remains unknown.

What we do know is that all engines harness an energy source:

Automobile engines harness burning fossil fuels.
Steam engines harness burning fuel.
Water wheels harness falling water first lifted by sun energy.
Solar panels harness radiation from the sun.
James Cox 'true perpetual motion' clock harnessed barometric changes powered by the sun.
Windmills harness air motion powered by the sun.
Tidal generators harness water motion powered by earth/moon momentum.
Batteries harness chemical energy.
Nuclear power harnesses atomic energy.

Nowhere in nature is gravity observed to act as a primary energy source. Therefore Bessler's wheel must have utilised either a hidden energy source (fraud) or a natural energy source (not fraud).

Those trying to build a fuelless engine don't understand the problem.

[Fletcher]

Well put, clear and concise, as you usually do Bill.

It has always appeared to me the the questions of Bessler fraud or not; of whether science is correct or wrong forms a type of matrix.

Or .. a y axis of Bessler was a fraud to he was genuine, and x axis of science is correct to science has it wrong about gravity being conservative and not a primary energy source.

Somewhere in that matrix or on that curve lies the answer to fraud and science. In there is the possibility that a natural energy source was used as the Prime Mover, but as you found finding a source with enough power is questionable (your Stirling looks the goods). But then we run up against the not insignificant problem of Bessler's honesty and integrity, and his patron Karl's.

If I assume he/they are honest and not massively mistaken then I have only Bessler's own words to fall back on here. And in those he seems equally clear and concise that the weights 'constitute the perpetual motion itself'. If alcohol, barometric, temperature, or another prime mover source (natural energy source) was used then the weights were not the primarily essential parts.

"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; 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 wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

If internal geometry changes of structures can influence a wheel to have sustained imbalance (greater than a normal OOB wheel attempt with equal and opposite torques proportional to mass distances vertically fallen and alternately lifted) then that would suggest that gravity can be a natural source of energy I guess. I might not know how that is done or how to describe in physics terms where the energy of rotation came from without depleting the rotating system but I do know where that is in the matrix.

Bessler didn't know it couldn't be done according to today's physics formulas. He just knew that no one else had previously succeeded in taming the wheelwork of nature to make a "true PMM".

[rlortie]

Bill wrote: "Tidal generators harness water motion powered by earth/moon momentum."

Wikipeia writes:
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) was the first person to explain tides as the product of the gravitational attraction of astronomical masses. His explanation of the tides (and many other phenomena) was published in the Principia (1687) and used his theory of universal gravitation to explain the lunar and solar attractions as the origin of the tide-generating forces. Newton and others before Pierre-Simon Laplace worked the problem from the perspective of a static system (equilibrium theory), that provided an approximation that described the tides that would occur in a non-inertial ocean evenly covering the whole Earth.The tide-generating force (or its corresponding potential) is still relevant to tidal theory, but as an intermediate quantity (forcing function) rather than as a final result; theory must also consider the Earth's accumulated dynamic tidal response to the applied forces, which response is influenced by ocean depth, the Earth's rotation, and other factors.

In 1740, the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris offered a prize for the best theoretical essay on tides. Daniel Bernoulli, Leonhard Euler, Colin Maclaurin and Antoine Cavalleri shared the prize.

My point being; It is gravity that effects tides, starting ocean currents moving mass. In days of sailing ships the phrase: "We weigh anchor with the outgoing tide." So, we have what we call conservative force moving a mass within a given time, we refer to as doing work!

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/navigatio ... dcurrents/

Did you know?
To measure currents, you need three basic tools – an observer, a floating object or a drifter, and a timing device.

With that you can measure work done by a force that Newton claimed conservative. yet admits that it is responsible for moving ships and any debris afloat.

And to Fletcher I say: :Yes we are overlooking liquids and fluid mechanics written by two of the fore mentioned Daniel Bernoulli and Leonhard Euler

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Ralph, there would be no tides without earth/moon motion. Tidal power is at the expense of earth/moon momentum, not gravity.

[rlortie]

I agree that tides are caused by earth/moon motion, this is not hard to understand.

But what if Newton and all who followed agree that it is gravitational forces causing high and low tides as the earth revolves and the moon rotates.

If earth and moon revolved and rotated at the same RPM would we not have a constant high tide and low tide never changing with motion of either?

Ralph