new Bessler-sites online

[a.z.]

perhaps my findings in
http://www.heizungsvergleich.de/bessler/unwucht.html
contain the principle of Besslers wheel - a Christmas present to the world.
They are in german, but kept simple and easy to understand.

Merry Christmas everyone
Alois Zimmermann

[silent]

Thanks for sharing. I even got a mention on the website! Pretty cool.

silent

[John Collins]

Good job Alois. I like what you’ve done.

JC

[Fletcher]

Thanks a.z. for posting up your theory here for everyone to consider, just in time for Christmas.

I commend you for the enormous amount of work you have put into your ideas, and the building of your website. The presentation factor is excellent. You really put some thought into it.

I hope it generates some good discussion for you of the principles you have employed and how they might work.

Cheers !

[Fletcher]

Here is a google translate to English of the link page a.z. gave, to aid understanding of his concept development and discussion.


The unbalance system - newly developed.

The previous simulations show that I have not yet found the actual principle of energy gain. I probably have to think through all aspects again and maybe improve them - starting with the unbalance system.

I clearly assign the verses on page 81 in the Apological Poësie to the unbalance system:

"Wills also briefly describe here:
Namely, an art work has to do
Of many but pieces Bley (lead) /
They are now always two and two /
Something takes the place externally /
So the other drives to the wave / �

Furthermore, in picture MT138 Bessler almost certainly gives an indication of the principle, the mechanics of the lever mechanism and supplements it with the words:

"Children = play in which there is something special, who knows how to apply them in a different way."

If we ignore the anvil for the time being and consider the heads as moving masses, then we see a structure that can be reflected around the vertical axis. If we hold the upper wood and move the lower one, the figures always move in parallel. If one swings forward, the other automatically goes backwards and vice versa. This is achieved through the lower connecting rod.

In our bike, however, we need a mechanism that is the same after turning through 180 degrees, i.e. a transformation into rotation. For this, e.g. the left part in the sketch rotated 180 degrees. In principle, we have achieved what we wanted. When one mass goes outside, the other moves towards the center, the wave, as Bessler wrote.

Unfortunately, this is not quite optimal with the connecting rod. The movement is distorted and the angle is severely restricted. Therefore, another modification: We replace the connecting rod with belts on pulleys and we can turn the satellite masses by 180 degrees with constant translation and without jamming.

The following animation shows the movement of this subfunction. In the finished unbalance system, there are two of them, offset by 90 degrees.

The Algodoo scene for the animation opposite can be downloaded here.

If you want to work more intensively with the scene, you should also have a look at the associated text file.
To drive the system, the upper motor is briefly switched on using script language. The text file shows which parameters can be used to change the switch-on and switch-off angles as well as the torque and speed of the motors.

To simplify the creation of the gif file, I reduced the speed and placed a motor on the central shaft to achieve a constant angular speed.

The most important aspect with this arrangement is probably the switch off of the centrifugal force when the lower mass is raised. Bessler achieves this by running the lower wheel backwards briefly.

"They are now always two and two /
Something takes the place externally /
So the other drives to the wave / �

The first line seems clear: two flight weights always belong together - as shown in the animation.
But it probably has another meaning: Always "two and two", that's four.
And two such systems offset by 90 degrees - result in a cross, but more on that later.

With the following still image of this unbalance system I want to show a few aspects that make this mechanism so interesting. A Bessler wheel is not a static, but a highly dynamic structure. The handed down speeds indicate that the centrifugal force of an outer flight weight corresponds approximately to the force of gravity. You should always keep that in mind.

If you look at the top satellite, the red weight, the centrifugal force increases as you swing out. This reduces the energy required to lift the mass.

However, the flight weight moves away from the center of rotation of the wheel, which means a slowdown after the pirouette effect. The energy for this comes from the inertia of the wheel.

At the lower flight weight, the weight and the centrifugal force add up, which would actually correspond to a doubling. The trick of the backward movement, however, almost eliminates the centrifugal force, making it easier to lift. In addition, there is the pirouette effect, which now has a positive effect, i.e. accelerates the wheel.

In principle, it can be seen that the action of lifting both flight weights requires relatively little energy, which is also steadily decreasing.

next page

[silent]

This is the first time I've ever read anything about a "bike." Since when did Bessler talk about his bike? That's amazing! Bikes have 2 wheels and the wheel itself perhaps could be one weight and a weight on it's periphery is weight #2. 2 and 2 - completely feasible. One could see perhaps a clock-spring unwinding on one wheel and being wound on the other and on and on they go changing places in a place where others had looked.

silent

[Fletcher]

Here is a Topic called .. Gain force from their own swinging by jim_mich in 2006.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... highlight=

In it he and others discuss many things related to the ideas that a.z. introduces. It is worth a read alongside a.z.s Topic and may aid the discussion.

Below is pic from page 2 of that thread and created by jim_mich. I reproduce it here because of certain mech similarities.

[silent]

I really think there is something to this Fletcher. More than once in my research I've thought about the path the weights take. Back when I was showing my dodecagram discovery with the cardboard pieces and how it was the mechanism that Michigan Jim had depicted via his moving weights diagram (where they are going in and out), I was struggling to figure out how I could emulate that movement without actually using a dodecagram to do it. Perhaps it can be done with weights on rims chained together - in fact yes, I think it can.

Anyway, the movement of the weights I've ran across seems to coincide with the knot-theory revelation of 'circle' that I've posted about. The most common picture with knot-theory seems to show also an orbiting path of the weights.

Seeing that diagram from Michigan Jim makes sense and if it works like a person thinks, the movement of the weights torques the wheel around. Using some of the clues from "circle", I'm beginning to wonder if there wasn't in fact a balance spring behind each of those weights and 2nd, if the weights themselves weren't set up with varying masses on each end. Included are a couple of quick sketches experimenting with different ideas.

Only my opinions.
silent

[Georg Künstler]

Great work from Alois,
but the system is during the rotation symmetrical, so no OU possible with this construction.

In addition it is using centrifugal forces, which was not the case in Besslers wheel.

As i said several times, a mass moving on a circle path is a dead end,
The swinging must allow a swinging in the room, up,down,left right in one go, egging. Then you will get differences in the forces.

The 'unwucht' must be controlled, if not, the system will be destoyed in a short time. we are dealing here with a positive feedback loop, fast up against gravity and slow down.

Such forces will appear also on an unbalanced tire with high speed.
The controlling of this is the enegineering task.
The task was already accomplished from Don Martin some years ago.
But as always, physicans ...

[silent]

You know Fletcher, the more I think about it, that diagram might be closer to the truth than we realize. I was thinking about the wheel this morning and we have it plainly stated that weight-shifting to cause overbalance is out. It's not the way to success and even 'circle' says as much. So what does that leave? It only leaves inertia, mass, and throwing weights around. Unless there is some other principle of moving weights that we don't know or understand, I can't see there is any other way than this or something quite close. This method with a spring is nothing more than a glorified 360 pendulum arrangement with a balance spring that keeps the wheel going by yanking it along. I'm still confused because this doesn't have an impact at 4:30 and 'circle' said it would run with just 2 weights and it would fall quickly and then slowly upright itself. Heavens no - please tell my brain to quit thinking about kiiking.

Shortly after I typed that, I had a thought about the toys page where one weight is in the center and one weight is not. What I'm wondering then is with the diagram from Michican Jim, if the leading weight kind of pushes along the wheel and then the rear weight stays in the middle. That effectively removes the weight from the wheel and all the forces. We are always thinking about how to over-balance a wheel by moving a weight outwards and supposedly this can't be. But if we place a weight in the dead center of rotation, don't we suddenly remove it from being seen in the wheel, then in effect haven't we overbalanced one side of the wheel - not by putting a weight there, but by removing it temporarily from the other side? Normally if we have weights on opposite sides of the wheel, as per the roberval balance principle, it doesn't matter where we orient the weight - the balance is still transferred and it stays in balance. If we move the weight to the middle and let it rest there, then suddenly the wheel is imbalanced because the remaining weight on the other side is still in whatever position it is in.

Just my opinion.


silent

[Silvertiger]

Imo, the wheel must balance while in motion, meaning that it's CoM should be either directly at the center OR directly beneath the center, and only while in motion. Once it drops below a certain rpm, something needs to happen that forces the unbalance. I don't know how tbis can be achieved mechanically, but B did seem to imply, at least to me, that there may have been static charges built up and released between the weights and the felt when he mentions the "summer lightning." Just a thought though, since he does talk about the form and properties of different elements and materials. Because of this, I haven't yet found cause to rule out magnetism, electricity, and water. :)

[silent]

Hello Alois and thanks for your wonderful website.

I've been hitting the research regimen pretty hard lately trying to solve this riddle and after reading one of the posts by "circle" from the over-unity forum, I couldn't help but think of your graphical representation of the idea I had of the lazy tongs mechanism.

I found a nice website recently that showed how to make them operate with far less friction by using a rail system and since Bessler said they were important, I'm going to have to relent and say that perhaps we must use them after all.

Now I wanted to add another quote from circle's posts where he quoted a reply from another user "vince." If you read very, very carefully, circle agrees with what vince says and goes on to say that Bessler's mechanism is efficient and deceptively simple.

Here is vince's message:

@ Circle (aka "x" in another form)


I read your posts with great interest and anticipation. I'm not quite sure of your ultimate goal . You have stated that you know the solution to the age old perpetual motion quest and Bessler's design in particular. I believe you are very intelligent and may very well have discovered the design, however in other posts you have stated that you have not actually built a working prototype but may wish to have someone build it and allow you to share in any profits aswell be able to claim discovery title. It always comes to this, just like Bessler no one wants their design to be stolen or copied because they feel that money and status will be the ultimate reward. Unfortunately in today's world an idea will quickly become common knowledge and may be copied or stolen very easily. Profiting from something like this would be very difficult unless one could perfect a design that actually produces usable power, mass produces it, and puts it out for sale before copiers make their own version. Selling your intellectual property to someone that is willing to pay for it would give you your financial reward but puts the buyer in the same predictament.


Many in this forum have the means and the ability to build your device . I have been playing around with designs for years but reading your posts sparked my interest again. I came up with some basic design criteria that are both obvious and unique. Allow me to share my thoughts, and on a latter post I will show pictures of 2 one arm prototypes that I built.
Any gravity wheel must have certain elements to make it function.
First a weight must be moved to a outermost radius in it's structure at approximately the 12 o'clock position.
It must maintain that position throughout its falling arc to approximately the 6 o'clock position., at which point it must be retracted to an innermost radius and held until it again reaches the 12 o'clock position.
To move that weight, one must employ a slave weight that must be heavier than the torque generating weight and also overcome any springs tension that may be used to maintain positioning.
The movement and path of the slave weight must not interfere with the balance of the rotating structure unless it benefits the gravity actions of the torque generating weight.
Latching may be necessary to hold the torque generating weight in either the inner or outer radius positions. The use of latching would require a fixed outer trigger position or a non rotating axle with a fixed internal trigger to release the the latch mechanism. (My 2prototypes do not use a latch)
Rotation speed is paramount. A governor may be employed or some method of controlling rpm is essential because as speed increases centrifugal forces come to play and cause both slave weights and torque generating weights to assume set positions and become locked at those points.


There you have it, my simple thoughts on a gravity wheel design and by all accounts both my designs work. My wheel segments push weights out at 12 o'clock and retract them at 6 o'clock. My slave weights move in a constant radius and do not affect balance. The Torque generating Weights maintain position throughout the arcs and do not need latching. One would think I discovered the secret!! BUUUUT!
I will wait till my next post to show you the BUUUT.


Seems I am not that smart after all! Guess I will have to go back to 5th grade and learn Knot theory.(LOL)


In all fairness Circle , you are right. We cannot set our thoughts on simple traditional designs and not let our minds explore different ideas.
I watched the video you posted on the X site about knot theory , and read several sites about the subject but to tell you the truth I cannot correlate the subject matter to the bessler wheel. Your last post here shows a cross sectional view of a wheel ( not sure who's design) where the last activating mechanism has a
Conical drum and an endless rope arrangement that moves 2 outer drums or weights. Is this where knot theory comes to play in a looped drive?


Sorry for the long post , but the possibility of gravity wheels has always been a fascinating subject.


Vince
==============================================
Now here is circle's reply:

i like to be thorough.. but there are many points to respond to in your post
i see four basic concepts to address here.. maybe more if we are to get into the details of your design
first, as far as objectives go.. i consider it improbable that i could become the title holder to such a device.. despite the fact that i hold the concept
in this modern world things can be controlled in ways people seldom consider
for example; how very few people can say that they have seen the college newspaper front page photo of young clinton living in a tree on campus? the article detailed how it was being done in protest to the vietnam conflict and mentioned that the fire department had come out to spray under the tree due to the stench (as he never left the tree.. even having assignments and books brought to him)
with over 3000 copies you would think that one had run the gantlet and made it to the public.. but no.. that was not to be
..as with the buzz saw device, an exclusion process was carried out

it is a select few who even are inclined to be aware of such things

if not to disclose it.. my idea of using the device for profit would probably involve hiding its output by running several other systems; wind, solar, water and such
otherwise, it will take more than simply building it to capitalize on it

second, you describe a system that has many similarities to the device as bessler arranged it and you seem to have several of the concepts broken into clear independent elements.. the system that bessler used was a very efficient method of accomplishing several things at once so gracefully that it is deceptively simple
the simple parts are tasked to so many functions in a moment of turning that it can become disorienting trying to assign them simple names based on their function
the two weights are equal and seem to accomplish all the functions you assign as needed though i am not making a through comparison here

third and fourth..
the connection of knot theory to the wheel is in the path of the weights
and
the device that you take note of was bessers idea of a motorized wagon
although i do not have a full understanding of his diagram for it,
the conical set up with the belt drive was pretty advanced stuff for its time

to further address the third point i singled out as a topic..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mdEsouIXGM
=====================================

The moebius path of the weights is duplicated by your mechanism based upon my question to Fletcher. Since circle keeps saying that the weights required were 2 sets of 2, then I'm wondering if perhaps 4 of the 8 weights were located in the middle and they all worked together to activate the the lazy tongs. The other 4 weights would have been out on the ends so that they could lever around the slightly offset and concentrated weighted center.

You might not be very far off with this design. I've had the idea for about a year when I posted a version affixed to a board plank. My question to Fletcher was a refinement of that mechanism. Perhaps we don't really need lazy tongs the whole way. We just need to find the point at which the weight of a lazy tongs plus the outer weight equals the weight in the middle when brought into balance like the old cotton scale and once that is figured out, then run a rod from the central weight out to the lazy tongs mechanism so that the extended weight can work it's leverage on the wheel and then be retracted as far as is necessary to be able to be lifted by it's counter part once again.

I had written off this mechanism, but after further review, this might just be what circle was talking about and your mechanism is a great representation of this. Thank You for your efforts!

silent