Has anyone ever done a systematic analysis of the MTs?

[raj]

In our 21st century.the prime mover of all moving machines is a starter motor which is only there to start motion of the machines and not to provide energy for running and doing work.

So did Bessler's hand and you by providing a starting GPE to your wheel to start the motion of the wheel with the help of gravity, to allow swinging weights to move in a predefined asymmetric orbital path just like planets around thr sun., providing asymmetric torque to your wheel to turn.

This is my first two posts of this new year 2019.

FROM UK.

Raj

[ME]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_mover

It is that thing which converts a source of energy into useful work.

[eccentrically1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_mover

"Prime mover" is a technical term of art in science and engineering meaning any machine (or component of a machine) that converts energy from an energy source into mechanical energy (shaft power), usually as a motive power source providing traction to move a vehicle.
In machines, the prime mover, such as an electric motor, generates the main mechanical motion for the machine.

In our 21st century.the prime mover of all moving machines is a starter motor which is only there to start motion of the machines and not to provide energy for running and doing work.

Starter motors get their energy from somewhere else, usually a battery. In our 21st century the prime mover of most machines is combustion engines.

[eccentrically1]

Thanks ME.

[raj]

In Bessler's time, he could have used the power of his hand, as a atarter motor.

Is it a sacriledge to think of this possibility?

CRANKS were used to start fuel powered engines using the power of man's arm not so long ago.

Raj

[eccentrically1]

Yes that's what he did with the bidirectional wheels, that's not in dispute.

[eccentrically1]

--

[Georg Künstler]

so eccentrically1 is right with his opinion.

We are the prime mover because we are building the wheel.
Without us, the wheel will not exist.

But my definition was different.
The one directional wheel was from construction out of balance.
Also here an action from hand was necessary, to loose the breaking rope.
But this I don't see as the prime mover.
The prime mover will move the wheel after Bessler keeps the hand off.
Bessler initiate, that the wheel can run, like you turn a key in your car.

In the one directional wheel he loose the rope,
In the bi-directional wheel he turned it out of position.
After this action the prime mover can do his work.

[agor95]

I have too confess - I have not spent time on this 'Prime Mover' reference.

I do value members, present and passed, for their focus on aspects of 'The Quest' my mind is not tuned too relate to; at this time.

We had an article from a news paper from 'New York' were a polish person [his origin] built a device.
Counter rotational that had 8 weights. This was inertia neutral until the 9th weight was added. This in my mind is a classic 'Prime Mover'.

[ovyyus]

If Bessler's prime mover was a thing which converted a source of energy into work then his real secret wasn't defined by the thing, it was defined by the source.

[raj]

Nice discussion!

Raj

[raj]

So in a bidirectional wheel, using hands as a starter motor to provide initial powert to start a wheel is ok.

But in a unidirectional wheel, raising one weight by hand, to give it prearranged GPE to provide initial torque as a starter motor IS NOT OK?

Well, well, well!
Three holes in the ground.

Raj

[agor95]

If Bessler"s prime mover was a thing which converted a source of energy into work then his real secret wasn't defined by the thing, it was defined by the source.

What if the 'secret' was a way of thinking and understanding the world around you?

[ME]

Ecc1, sorry :-)

Maybe just a semantic issue, but I consider Bessler's bi-directional to be in static balance because he likely combined two uni-directionals...
Most likely such needs to overcome the local minimum potential well in that current starting position, not present in the unidirectional.
In short: the push decides which way to go for this bi-director.
For purpose of discovering a potential principle I consider the unidirectional wheel to be far superior to a bi-directional. A designed bi-directional is usually based on misconceptions and likely not work.

[eccentrically1]

If Bessler's prime mover was a thing which converted a source of energy into work then his real secret wasn't defined by the thing, it was defined by the source.

Right, no argument there. The combustion engine's secret is fossil fuel to further that analogy.
But energy conversion back then wasn't understood in those same terms, so he never mentions what the wheels' original source of energy was, even if he understood it in those same terms. Leibniz termed it vis viva, living force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#History

So in a bidirectional wheel, using hands as a starter motor to provide initial powert to start a wheel is ok.

But in a unidirectional wheel, raising one weight by hand, to give it prearranged GPE to provide initial torque as a starter motor IS NOT OK?

Well, well, well!
Three holes in the ground.

Raj

Yes, it's ok as long as you understand that the wheels didn't keep turning from that initial prearranged GPE.