"The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines"

[Georg Künstler]

Hi ME,
Gravity(or whatever you call it) is a force which can accelerate a mass, here on earth with this 9,81...

Every object is accelerated with 9.81..

To extract the energy from Gravity(or whatever you call it) you only have to create different accelerations, left and right on a Lever.

So the different a will create the imbalance.
F1 = a1*m
F2 = a2*m if a1 is different to a2 then also the Forces are different

If F1 ne F2 then you have momentum on your Wheel.

[John Collins]

ME. I don’t really need to explain the concept, but anyway, the facts seem to point to the need for gravity to be present. The need for the presence of weights, supports the use of gravity as a means to unbalance the wheel, or in some people’s opinion to bring the wheel into balance.

Bessler said the weights were the actual mechanism. So we have weights, gravity, rotation - nothing else is required. The logical conclusion is that gravity provided the means to rotate the wheel. You can’t have no energy source to rotate the wheel, therefore gravity must have provided it. So grabitybus the energy source.

JC

[Silvertiger]

...or in some people’s opinion to bring the wheel into balance.

According to Bessler, there shouldn't BE any opinions, and he specifically addresses it:

In its interior it gains - for how else does it grow out of balance?

To me, this reads like the wheel starts out in a state of balance, and then achieves an accumulation of unbalance through its own motion. The very notion of his statement is directly counter-intuitive to classical physics, for in the world of physics that WE know, only the reverse is true: that if it starts out of balance, it will move until it achieves balance. Somehow, he seemed to have reversed that principle and somehow made it true.

[raj]

In the next few days, after having spent almost 4 months in UK, trying to finer tune my Desktop Swinging weight Toy Wheel Concept Build, I am going to post on this forum, the simplest
of ALL wheel concepts:
An Intricate WHEEL with SWINGING Weights .

I am inviting ALL ForUm members to get ready to simulate this simplest wheel with weights. You will be ALL PROUD of this finding, as team members of this new concept.

Raj

[ME]

I don’t really need to explain the concept

Sure you do, I want in!

But seriously:
a. Many people are here because you are the author of several books... there's some authority issue;
b. People need to know the difference between force and energy in order to recognize and explain any new physics principles we may find;
c. Never mind the topic title...

To extract the energy from Gravity(or whatever you call it) you only have to create different accelerations, left and right on a Lever.

George, you talk about torque. ...and then it rotates and you need a way to reset that leverage-differential.
I already have shown several times the graphical method (and reason) to achieve that in a rotating environment with its implication; "attrition" is creeping in.


TODO: Update PMM-EULA that misaligned opinion voids warranty.

[raj]

@ Marchello,
I am looking forward to post here on this forum, after I have safeguarded my new concept prioriyy date. drawing and full description of the simplest wheel concept to be posted here and I am inviting you and all forum members with simulation facilities to simulate, if you care or dare, this new concept, as joint partners in this concept endeavour.

I do not worry to have to continue on this concept on my own.

Raj

[Fletcher]

...or in some people’s opinion to bring the wheel into balance.

According to Bessler, there shouldn't BE any opinions, and he specifically addresses it:

In its interior it gains - for how else does it grow out of balance?

To me, this reads like the wheel starts out in a state of balance, and then achieves an accumulation of unbalance through its own motion. The very notion of his statement is directly counter-intuitive to classical physics, for in the world of physics that WE know, only the reverse is true: that if it starts out of balance, it will move until it achieves balance. Somehow, he seemed to have reversed that principle and somehow made it true.

Well said ST (describing the two-way wheels). It certainly sounds exactly like conditions for continuous imbalance, once underway !

It maybe worthwhile reading and comparing some of the the various short and long form intel on the subject ? The first two are naturally similar. The third is Bessler himself from DT ( digital book available from John Collins website .. http://www.free-energy.co.uk/html/books_for_sale.html ). You reinforce what JB says.

He describes how he began to build a new wheel, making it larger than the others and explains that the 'inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement. 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, on the contrary these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetual motion itself; as 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 placed together, so arranged that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wondrous speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move'.

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 internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely – that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity – without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation – such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other ‘automatics’ – e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my ‘principle of excess weight’, is NOT just an external appendage, an ‘added-on device’ which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit. 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 coordinated 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.

[MrTim]

and Mr Tim, (good to see you’re still here.)

I try to visit at least once a day... ;-)

Gravity(or whatever you call it) is a force which can accelerate a mass, here on earth with this 9,81...

Every object is accelerated with 9.81..

My math isn't too good on these sorts of things, but I believe Bessler's wheels turned at about half of that velocity (the Gera wheel was closest, the larger wheels appearing slower due to having a larger circumference, but I'll bet they were close as well.) A 50% efficiency would be nothing to sneeze at... ;-)

[ovyyus]

Not knowing the difference between energy and power, or velocity and acceleration, or force and work, is pm utopia.

[eccentrically1]

The definitions are based on empirical observations, which are subjected to the scientific method.
Every experiment that fails to create energy from a force at least successfully proves the first law of thermodynamics, if nothing else. That’s the way the universe has been for 13.799 +/- .021 billion years.

[WaltzCee]

Every experiment that fails to create energy from a force at least successfully proves the first law of thermodynamics

Or has found one more way energy can't be created.

The definitions are based on empirical observations, which are subjected to the scientific method. 

1LoT is philosophical assertion.

[John Collins]

I was answering the seemingly simple question of where does the wheel’s energy come from? Without defining what gravity is, i.e., energy, force, acceleration, velocity etc, the wheel’s energy comes ultimately from the presence of gravity, or if you prefer, gravity enables the wheel to rotate.

JC

[Georg Künstler]

Hi John Collins,
gravity (or what ever you call it) is a energy source !!

Here some definitions are wrong, but it is not my Task to correct this for the physicans.
Therefore we have our experts on the university.

Gravity accelerates any Body here on earth with 9,81 meter /( second *second).
So we have a Acceleration.
we can choose any weight X. X maybe 50 kg.

The Force we have with F = a*m, then we have in our example
F = 9,81 * 50 Kg* Meter//second*Second)

But gravity is not stopped it is acting every time.

(P)ower = (F)orce* v Velocity = Acceleration * time.

Here you can see that the power is increasing when gravity can do its work.
because the Speed is increasing.

(E)nergy = 1/2 m * v * v

But you see, gravity is acting the complete time to accelerate things.
The energy which can be harvested therefore is time dependent.
Therefore Bessler made his Building so big.
He needs the time to accelerate the weights to a specific speed.

So the energy which can be harvested from/with Gravity is depending on the Body mass and the Duration time of acceleration of the Body mass.

A small Wheel in Diameter has a short Duration time of acceleration.
So bigger is better to harvest the energy.

[WaltzCee]

. . .but rather emphasizing that we may need to rethink gravity itself.

This is a long held belief. If gravity is conservative, there
is no energy to turn the wheel. If the wheel turns was the
energy created and how? We suppose Bessler's wheels turned.

If the conservative force of gravity can cause a wheel to
turn, why not a spring? It's probably just me but it's
incredibly exciting to think about how this rediscovery
is going to turn the world on its head.

[agor95]

Georg Künstler

I think the power gain route is the way to go.

The key is to store and release the energy via a different method.

We know that changing the direction of a mass needs power.

Also a device that is accelerated goes through structural stress.
In a way this is another power source.

The transfer from these components are what we have to work with IMHO.

Regards