A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by Gill Simo »

Nothing new as such, more an attempt at re-enforcement.

Convinced that we seek a motion that perpetuates & not the impossibility of an axle perpetually in motion under gravity, then I have to assume that clues, wherever one might consider them to be found, relate to a motion...& not a gravity driven axle.

Against a backdrop of maybe clues, vague clues, hidden codes/symbolism etc, then the toy's page, a self proclaimed clue, sits apart, What plausible sense might be made of this important page, proclaiming itself to have a good sense ?

My plausible take is as follows....

A/B...The primary motion...of an alternating sine/Savonius kind.

C/D...The construct for achieving this motion...every opportunity is taken to affirm that these are different toys & not just one toy at two positions...everything is visually different. Both are labeled twice to indicate that, in essence...both toys are a parallelogram (D/D) but one has a twist to it (C/C).....quite literally in this instance.

E...The implications...here we're invited to consider the result of twisting a parallelogram....how a straight line motion back/forth in one direction is attended by a back/forth straight line motion in another..two motions in one. And how the ratio between those two motions, in terms of distance moved, can be varied by off-setting the centre/crossing point of crossed members.

Nothing on this page appertains to gravity...or to the design characteristics of some wacky contraption to cheat it...it appertains to motion..the Principles & construct of a motion that perpetuates......"taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them".... a movement...a motion.

I've attempted to spell out the implications of twisting a parallelogram & setting it in motion, several times...each time begging for input re those implications...re `The Motion/s` and each time I've been pulled into debate/dispute about bloody Gravity.

A twisted parallelogram in motion is a balanced motion...throughout. T'would be a rum affair surely if a perpetual motion was unbalanced. Centre it at a fixed point in the gravitational field & gravity has no business with it's motion..its only business is business as usual..to give weight to the proceedings & assure itself that balance is indeed maintained.

The motion/s that you apparently see best to dismiss/ignore, in preference to gravity acting on the motion, is one of weight, evenly distributed, in a sine/Savonius, fig8, motion around two points, both of which are constantly flailing back & forth...in addition to the CofG of the weight also flailing back & forth at 90 degree to this.

I've previously shown the oddities involved in holding this motion at a fixed point...by maintaining it across the diameter of a wheel, by way of its rim/s. If you instead hold this at the axle...done by forcing the point where x-members cross (CofG) to always remain at a fixed point rather than flailing back/forth through it...then the motion itself flaps like a set of wings.

I do not have the necessary knowledge to be able to assess such a combination of motions given free reign to express themselves as one, so to speak. I'm starting to seriously doubt that anyone here has, or that I could make sense of any argument put forward by someone who has anyway.

But I do have the nonce to know that a looping motion with such odd attributes must surely hold infinitely more promise than continually reaffirming an obvious impossibility & I just feel the urgent need to implore/convince you's, as ever, to make yourselves a simple twisted parallelogram & study/consider it in depth....in terms of the Physics, if you're able but equally as important, in terms of your imagination...for you might all be blessed with more than your fair share of synapsis but they're way too narrow under the pressure of gravity, with respect.
You display all the classic signs of addiction...to a lost & utterly futile cause in this instance. And classic to any addict, you are therefore, most regrettably, thus rendered a big part of the problem whilst no part its solution.

You think a clear impossibility is plausible....but the above not so?
Lord!....what a nasty, debilitating, condition to have to suffer, on this quest in particular, if you do.

Get well soon...please!.....so we can get on with seeking a Perpetual Motion rather than a perpetual nonsense.

Best/Gill
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
User avatar
charly2
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:36 pm
Location: The City of the Mountains

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by charly2 »

Gill, before anything, your interpetation about the toys makes sense to me and sounds like you already have it or almost have it,.... do you have it?.
I agee, gravity is not necessary in any way for the motion. I can say I found it, I do not know if is exactly what Bessler did o just a variant of it
I do not want to sound pedantical but there is only one principle, based in two motions, and several variants por practical aplication. Once grasped one can see if a design of someone has or not future. I see the Asa Jackson Wheel with the two ratched wheels and I can deduce the mechanism or the Buzz Saw Wheel with the slots and weights and again complete mentally the missing parts. The inventors found the motion, perhaps not optimized but the principle was there.
If I show the motions perhaps will not make sense at first sight for anyone and it would be discarded before a try.
It would be easier try to use the obvious force: gravity, one can think it is there pulling everything, it must work, it is there, I can feel it. I guess that is the reason why we are still here, scratching our heads and asking why? why? why?......

Some about the toys, The way a see A and B: "B" is the primary motion on top of fig "<" a swing, "A" shows ratios 1:1 and 2:1 alternating in one and another direction.
The parallelogram in the two guys mech (C and D) is a mechanism to link two opposite weights in equilibrium and coordinated, but is not correct, you must change the position of one guy to the opposite side of the stick or arm where it is fixed. The two guys will go outward or inward at the same time. This way the machanism takes the correct shape, but it is not complete yet, do not discard this change, this is the base for two weights.
Bessler one-way wheel could use the "force" to overbalnce the wheel, shifthing weights in and out, perhaps as in the original toys C and D, but the real principle was not gravity.

To finish, unfortunately most people will change to real Perpetual Motionists untill see a non gravity wheel.
The problem is that the Bessler wheel was baptized as "The Gravity Wheel" from the begining, so the name says it all, right?
I told you so...
Sincerely, Your Gut Instincts
.·´¯`·.><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
oldNick
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by oldNick »

Perhaps Bessler believed the Earth as a flat plane, gravity not required! Maybe that's why you cant get it, different science y-know. lol
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by Fletcher »

Bessler wrote:
"Further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility of perpetual motion

NB. May 1, 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments, since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them."

- Johann Bessler, cover page of Maschinen Tractate
charly2 wrote:
The problem is that the Bessler wheel was baptized as "The Gravity Wheel" from the beginning, so the name says it all, right?
Bessler wrote:
"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
The last quote above from Bessler (published) understandably leads many to search for a gravity force solution to a Perpetual Motion. But it sets up a contradiction with his first quote above from the private and unpublished MT. Yet both must tell some part of the story in some way.
ovaron
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:04 am
Location: CO

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by ovaron »

@Fletcher

The last quote of Bessler has an translation error. Bessler never said that one of the weights "must apply its weight at right angles to the axis".
In the quoted citation he speaks of the fact that loads applied externally to the shaft must be moved along. At no point does he speak of a right angle. Here probably the term "Vorticis Verticalis" was misinterpreted. At right angles to the axis is also difficult to understand. To me it makes no sense at all. What is at right angle to the axis? Every position (up, down, right, left) is at right angle to the axis. So this makes no sense.
I do not think that the first and second quote contradict each other. By movement he means the way the weights go inside the wheel. IMHO
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by Fletcher »

Thanks ovaron .. I was hoping someone would discuss something about these quotes.

I was actually wondering about the word 'weight' however, from ... "must apply its weight", rather than whether it was at right angles to the axis/axle etc.

Weight is a weight force derived from gravity force, and he does talk about 'so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity' which suggests an unbalanced wheel I think.

I also think the "must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move" simply means a torque on the axle by the weights is created to turn the axle.

But as Gill points out the first quote talks about two things .. firstly a motion to be described and secondly a movement to be found. They appear to me to be two separate but related things; a motion of parts which also prescribes a particular movement .. which then creates torque at the axle.

Whether that's the traditional unbalanced gravity wheel or an inertial exploit to turn a wheel for example is not at all clear to me. One thing that always bothered me was Bessler never describing it as a gravity wheel with the exception of the quote above - the only time he used the word gravity. However in MT notes he uses the English words force and movement.

Any thoughts you have appreciated.
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by John Collins »

Fletch, I can’t remember which German word Bessler used, but AFAIK the word ‘gravity’ derives from Newton’s Principia which was of course written in Latin. I think he used the word ‘gravitas’ which meant having the quality of heaviness or weight, ie, ponderousness.

Gravitas originally applied to the object as being attracted to earth whereas Newton suggested it was the attraction between two objects of mass.

My point being that maybe Bessler never used the word gravity as we use it, but rather the German equivalent of ponderousness or heaviness, a quality that weights had.

JC
Read my blog at http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/

This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google

See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by ME »

Perhaps it sounds silly, but the heaviness of things was demonstrated some time after Newton. A feather was shown to drop as fast as a hammer... at least on the Moon. But was it inertia or acceleration?
Unfortunately for some this still doesn't relate to things on Earth or is otherwise just part of the illusion.
No one cares as apparently Galileo also wasn't convincing enough when he threw all his stuff out of some building to show acceleration. Even though you can't blame this guy when, due to architectural challenges, all his furniture ended up in the same corner. That for sure distracts from any scientific conclusion.

Only the fact that the constancy of gravitational acceleration continuously needs to be demonstrated at all (even in modern times) is in my opinion a good reason that there's this hard to beat illusion that mass relates to acceleration.
In than sense I can imagine one thinks this "heaviness", ("gravitas", "importance", "severity") equates with "effort" to lift something up a castle tower, the "pain" you feel when it drops on your toe, and the "impact" it has on that castle under siege.

Bessler may have known about Newton's efforts, but did he actually adopt any ideas? Perhaps he did while still using words as they where generally understood.

Now I think of it, "heaviness" is actually very weird (without the knowledge of Inertia and Earth's gravity)
- A dropped sheet of papyrus accelerates/moves vertically less then a heavy cannonball.
- But it takes a lot of effort to throw/shoot a cannonball horizontally, compared to that papyrus (now unwittingly ball pressed)
I guess there must have been someone "in the field" who thought about the possibility of some break-even point? A situation where papyrus "moves as quick" as a cannonball....
One thing is for sure, we rather not have this cannonball dropped on our toe.

In short: In those days they had likely the same inquiring minds as we have now (on average, perhaps even more), but it's hard to know their level of knowledge and understanding...
We know Newton had the time, space, study and opportunity to give those things serious thought.
How about Bessler? I get the impression he was always running around; perhaps he learned a thing or two from apprenticeships...
Even without perpetual motion it's actually quite an accomplishment to understand gravitational acceleration: I suspect he would have proudly point to Galileo only to bug Newton and to demonstrate he's "up to par".

When we nowadays would drop a bowling ball on someone else's toe(s) then it's a bit weird to state that it accelerated as much as a pencil. And a pencil doesn't hurt either, so [....] <assumptions>

With all our potential knowledge about inertia and neural impulses we still need to be precise and specific to make a correct statement.
Instead, there's this quickly yelled: "ouch!", and claim it was "heavy", "massive", "severe" or other "words".
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by John Collins »

I loved what you wrote Marchello,

Newton’s work ‘Principia’, was first published in 1687 and two further editions in 1713 and 1726. In 1749 Voltaire wrote that there were scarcely a handful of intellectuals who fully understood and accepted his ideas, 60 years after the first publication!

So it seems unlikely that Bessler would have been familiar with Newton’s work prior to the construction of his first wheel. Of course his subsequent meetings with Leibniz might have included discussions on Newton’s book.

JC
Read my blog at http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/

This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google

See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

So does this make more sense..

...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 heaviness;...

"Out of the centre" is the operative phrase that is leading some to believe this quote is describing a gravity wheel. He could have said 'out of the centre of punctum quietus' as he used elsewhere and it would have meant the same thing. Gravity wasn't keeping the weights out of the centre of gravity, heaviness, or punctum quietus. It bears repeating; gravity was not keeping the weights out of the centre of gravity.
sleepy
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:53 pm
Location: earth

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by sleepy »

Gill,
I don't think gravity can be separated as either the motive force or a force that is acting upon the parts.Nothing that we can discuss will be operational without gravity.It doesn't matter if the movement is motion induced or simply over balanced.The only way that gravity would not be involved would be if a design would work in zero gravity.So regardless of how gravity is used,it will be an intrinsic part of every design. We are attempting to debate two things that cannot be separated.A working wheel and gravity.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by rlortie »

Author: Patrick J. Kelly, Second edition, released January 2008
The Law of Conservation of Energy applies to closed systems, and only to closed systems. If there is energy coming in from the environment,
then the Law of Conservation of Energy just does not apply, unless you take into account the energy entering the system from outside.
We use wind, and the sun to make energy and do work, why should gravity be any different? Gravity is a force and not unlike wind and solar, it is just another outside source or form of energy.

We consider it conservative only because unlike wind and solar we have yet to learn how to utilize it! Gravity is no more conservative than the wind filling a sail, the sun shining on a solar panel.

Ralph
daanopperman
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by daanopperman »

Gravity keeps everything together , drives the sun , and lifts the water for all waterwheel's and streams , albeit from a distance .
Liken gravity to a pie , you cannot eat it and have it .
It's like a genie , once you let it out it is out .
Like a vessel of compressed gas , if you use it , you loose it .

But gravity does not make the universe go round , it was the energy put into the singularity that drove the universe to expand , and forever to be in motion .

A self turning wheel cannot work work in space , you need to be able to restraint the opposing action .

Bessler said the wheel does not have a normal rim , and I doubt if there is any misinterpretation or translation in this . So what is a normal rim . A round hoop , something like spokes that kept the integrity of the rim ? I myself have never made a wheel with a abnormal rim , 3 : 4 : 5 sided , but he said if they want to call it a Wheel , let them ,
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by John Collins »

I agree with Ralph; I’ve been saying the same thing for the last 20 years!

As for the comment by Bessler about his wheel not having a normal rim, Bessler was writing poetry and trying to comment on the difference between his wheel and the usual wheel that people were familiar with, a cart wheel for instance, it had no iron rim. That’s all, no mystery.

JC
Read my blog at http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/

This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google

See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
User avatar
charly2
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:36 pm
Location: The City of the Mountains

re: A Cure for an Insipid little Habit?

Post by charly2 »

Ok, seems like, it is impossible to imagine a running wheel without gravity.

Lets imagine a pendulum, on of the most efficient way of accelerate a weight by gravity, it is suspended by hand at 1:00 o'clock or near 12:00 on the right side, now let it go, it will accelerate cw until reach 6:00, past that point the acceleration reverts and with low friction the pendulum will reach 11:00, the spectacular acceleration has gone, take out some energy of this and you know what happens, nothing new.
Thinking out of the box, it would be great if this acceleration from 1:00 to 6:00 could be replicated but now upward form 6:00 to1:00 again, obviously gravity is omnipresent and unidirectional, it won´t happen, simply.
In an inertial or motion wheel (statically balanced) the unidirectional gravity force is eliminated, the real problem has gone.
Now the brainstorm, find a mechanism that works influenced by the rotation of the wheel, it should make the same that the pendulum does: one side of acceleration (1:00 or 12:00 to 6:00) and the other side of deacceleration (6:00 to 11:00) from the perspective of the mechanism not from the wheel.
Use only the acceleration segment of the path, do not let it go to the deacceleration side, discard that one; now revert the motion and change the transmission to reverse (connected to the stator), prevent the natural path, now another motion in the opposite direction will to accelerate it again and prevent to go to the deacceleration zone again, from here the cycle repeats again.
Swinging weights in and out at the same time. This how a non gravity wheel works, using the acceleration part of two motions and discarding the rest.
It must be an inertial mechanism, statically balanced but not dynamically, one side heavy and the other light, speaking of force or acceleration (like a pendulum swinging under gravity, heavy and light, acceleration and deacceleration).
It would be as if a pendulum accelerate in both directions downward and upward. Always generating more acceleration or power all the time.

The mechanic of the motion is relatively simple but not so easy to understand at first.
Hope this give another thinking line.
I told you so...
Sincerely, Your Gut Instincts
.·´¯`·.><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Post Reply