Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[WaltzCee]

Thank you for setting the record straight, thx4. For that I'm upgrading you to thx5.

Everyone enjoys your videos.
Looking forward to seeing more of your work.
mercy bow coupe.

ETA
I tried to promote you but it didn't work. I need to sit at the system console and invoke the
SAC command.

[thx4]

A little quick test, but just to see if there is something to see!!!
I'm waiting for Georg's modifications :)

https://youtu.be/stKvR6xx7q8

A++

[WaltzCee]

After some research the idea belongs to "Charly2"

Can you give a link, thx5

This thread is excellent.
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:05 am
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 105#100105

You need to log on to read it.

ETA
your builds are incredible.

[Fletcher]

Truesup ! The problem I have is that B. claimed his was the first true mechanical PMM. Yet in DT he is aware of Cornelis Drebbel 100 years earlier.

I could believe that he miraculously managed to harness a large environmental force to provide his performance tests if it weren't for this inconvenient 'fact'. And Heron and his temple theatrics etc.

If Bessler's claim about 'true mechanical pm' is taken in the context of Drebbel's work, then you might be right. I would want to be sure of the context.

Here's Mike Seniors translation of DT's Latin to English.

From John Collins DT digital copy : Pg 252 onwards

But truly, long before Becharus,
PERPETUAL MOTION
was invented by the most ingenious Cornelius Drebbelius, who
in the year of our Lord (or year of the World’s Redemption)
MDCXX (1620) wrote of his invention in a letter to JAMES VI,
(i.e. James II) of Great Britain. This letter was published by
Joachim Morsus. In brief it states: -

“I am able�, (he says) “to construct a Globe, which perpetually
rotates, once every 24 hours like the heavens, or as many times
faster as I shall have decided. It is such that in a thousand
years it will not once fail, but continue to present to us the years,
months, days and hours, the courses of the Sun, the Moon, of
all the Planets and the Stars whose motion is known to Man. All
this is, as it were, made possible by utilising the known
harmonic properties of steel, flowing water and fire. This
knowledge is good for all time, and cost is the only constraint on
the achieving of greater force. Further, in order that I might
confirm more strongly that I do indeed know the cause of the
motions of things both up and down, what carries earth and
water upwards into the air, I suspend, in a closed vessel,
EARTH in the middle of water, WATER in the middle of air, and
in the middle of fire, to demonstrate how it is that one element
may surround another, just as we see that in the case of the
terrestrial globe it is surrounded by both water and air. And so
in this way I can make high low, (page 147) low high, light heavy
and heavy light. Further, I can force standing WATER upwards
to an altitude of 10, 20 or more feet. And because I have
discovered the cause of the WIND, I can construct machines
that blow violently. And because of my knowledge of the tides I
can construct an instrument which continually EBBS and
254
FLOWS twice every twenty-four hours, demonstrating in
perpetuity the changing months and days, the courses of the
Moon and the hours of the tides.

And so may it please YOUR
MAJESTY to examine the truth of my claims herein made. My
script is a young shoot grafted on to the tree of perpetual motion
with a true understanding of the elements; an insight into the
nature of things which will enable investigators to reach a lasting
store of knowledge in their quest to understand the marvels of
nature, and the possibilities opened up to us by this gift.
I am also prepared to put on other demonstrations, hoping that I
will thereby be able to provide a source of sweet delight such as
comes from true understanding of the causes of things. For
experience teaches us that there is no pleasure equal to that
given by a true understanding of nature, since this alone reveals
to us GOD’s perfect goodness, wisdom and power.
Many before me have bandied about miraculous ideas,
proposing tests using unknown words and absurd procedures.
And I believe that even those who are not ignorant, should they
attempt to use pure REASON alone to achieve their ends will,
all of them, suffer from the same noted madness, and that thus
their great chance of fame will be missed.
And therefore I shall not only make use of reasoning and the
giving of examples, but shall deeply examine for their truth all
examples given. And so, firstly, I shall relate the cause of FIRE,
and then the nature and operation of it; secondly, the properties
of other ELEMENTS; and, thirdly, the nature of COLD, the
cause of perpetual Motion, the essence of the Sun, and the
reason for the movements of Sky, Moon, Sea and Earth; finally,
the causes of the ebb and flow of the Tides, Thunder, Lightning,
Rainstorms, Winds, and the reasons why all these things grow
and multiply. In this manner I shall be able to show to others the
pathway I myself discovered, after many errors, and which will
enable them to bring to light, with little difficulty, even more
wonderful things. For (I swear to GOD) that in this undertaking
I have made use neither of the writings of the ancients, nor of
the help of any other person, but have discovered (page 148)
these things solely by assiduous observation and through
255
scrutiny of the elements. We know indeed that in the past men
– nay, large numbers of them – have followed the quest for such
knowledge. They write that – ARCHIMEDES once constructed
a globe which could revolve perpetually in accordance with the
course of the heavens, but that, one day, this globe, together
with its inventor himself, were ‘removed’ by a detestable act of
war, and hence the proof of its genuiness was lost. And, as
judged by the renowned craftsman Drebbelius, of Alkmar in
Belgium, once an Engineer to the BRITISH King, there exist
several procedures of PERPETUAL MOTION which turn out to
be mere trifles, which lead many astray and lead no-one to the
desired harbour. For, if any of these procedures were genuine,
the ANCIENTS would have discovered them, and would have
left to us memory of them, however small.
Hence I shall give a warning to all lovers of this art, and
demonstrate to them a better way.

Hypothetically speaking, if Bessler harnessed some kind of aerodynamic advantage, such as a variation on your wing lift mechanism, would he call it a mechanical pm?

I think he would ! And that would apply to direct aerodynamic lift from contour shape and managed air flow over it, to the use of bellows in some way.

Obviously air or fluids contained in a bellows arrangement, and released in the manner of say how a dampener works, or force pump, would not be aerodynamic in origin. Tho they might be considered a type of spring or assist in perhaps some beneficial manner to his runners, if used !

Regardless, I would think them inside the definition of true mechanical PM IF not of the known about types before him that he regales about as not his track.

[ovyyus]

Thanks Fletcher, nicely highlighted. I wonder what Bessler would have said about Cox's claim?

Regardless, I would think them inside the definition of true mechanical PM IF not of the known about types before him that he regales about as not his track.

A mechanism that somehow interacts with air/fluid might be the way forward. Purely mechanical approaches seem to be exhausted.

[Fletcher]

Thanks Fletcher, nicely highlighted. I wonder what Bessler would have said about Cox's claim?

Fletcher wrote:
Regardless, I would think them inside the definition of true mechanical PM IF not of the known about types before him that he regales about as not his track.

Cox was in 1760 and to me seems of similar ilk to Drebbel's ambient diurnal etc forces of pressure and temperature fluctuations. Therefore I think B. would also dismiss it as a mere trifle, and a distraction (lead many astray and not to the desired harbour).

A mechanism that somehow interacts with air/fluid might be the way forward. Purely mechanical approaches seem to be exhausted.

Yes, I agree, based on a vast prior human catalogue of endeavour and failure.

And a clue to that route and interaction might be in what B. said previously in the passage.

For (I swear to GOD) that in this undertaking I have made
use neither of the writings of the ancients, nor of
the help of any other person, but have discovered
these things solely by assiduous observation and through
scrutiny of the elements.

I have recently been delving again into this line of inquiry because B. specifically attributes things of importance in his solution to keen observation and thoroughness of study of the "elements". Not mechanics note !

i.e. things of the natural world and nature.

And also because previously he specifically singles out his organ building experiences in his successful quest to find a 'true mechanical PMM". When he was quite accomplished at many things including smithing and carpentry etc but he highlights organ building craft.

A PM principle that uses air or hydraulic pressure seems it could have some legs in the solution. But perhaps not in the FORMAL Pascal's Law manner (1653) as that had already been discovered and documented. He says he alone discovered it, without HELP from anybody else. I would say a simple applied pressure differential, without much fanfare. Also something quite basic but integral/fundamental to having a runner.

e.g. a lateral thinking but simple answer (n.b. not a pneumatic or hydraulic lever analogue f1 x d2 = f2 x d1) to supplement the pure mechanical shortcomings !

i.e. something that occurred to him to solve an inconvenient problem with the pure mechanics approach he had previously tried over and over .. "AP pg 269 : I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile."

[Georg Künstler]

WaltzCee wrote:

Grimmer is\was very smart and I think you stole that idea from him. I do know he
published it before you started talking about it Georg.

Now if the idea has merit

Why don't you take it to the next level and
produce the final proof?


Just curious. A build that worked would sell the theory to me.

Then take Grimmer's or Charly2's version.

For me it s absolutely clear that you don't understand what I had written before.
If you had understood it, you will not compare apple with nuts.

Here some examples of my builts.
Look if you will find the same models elsewhere.
Only with experiments you can find what I had described you on the previous post.

And rolling on the ground
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5X_VXiiPTw

[ovyyus]

..He says he alone discovered it, without HELP from anybody else. I would say a simple applied pressure differential, without much fanfare. Also something quite basic but integral/fundamental to having a runner.

Yes, something so simple the buyer would complain it wasn't worth the asking price. That might explain why Karl didn't buy it.

e.g. a lateral thinking but simple answer (n.b. not a pneumatic or hydraulic lever analogue f1 x d2 = f2 x d1) to supplement the pure mechanical shortcomings !

If purely mechanical pm is truly impossible then I think Bessler's secret must involve some interaction between the moving mechanism and the air it moves through. We know he was very interested in air.

[Georg Künstler]

ovyyus wrote:

We know he was very interested in air.

He, Bessler was more interested in resonance, because he knows how to build organs.

So he was a master in frequence, frequency manipulation.

His gravity wheel does only use gravity to power the wheel.
No Air, no Fuel, nothing as you currently know as energy source.
It is the periodic motion of the weights which are powering the wheel.
A syncronized motion of weights.

You can create an amplified mechanical oscillation with only 2 weights.
The weights acting with an offset of 180 degrees as many other amplifiers which we know from electronics,
I have described that also that it does not use the parametric oscillation, it is using the parasitic oscillation.

Look in youtube for parasitic oscillation, if you are interested.

[Fletcher]

..He says he alone discovered it, without HELP from anybody else. I would say a simple applied pressure differential, without much fanfare. Also something quite basic but integral/fundamental to having a runner.

Yes, something so simple the buyer would complain it wasn't worth the asking price. That might explain why Karl didn't buy it.

Something that was inspired from his study of the 'elements'. But not known about in a formal way in 1712. And because he didn't receive any help from anyone prior, nor the 'ancients' knowledge passed down, then it should narrow the field. It rules out ambient temperature and pressure changes like a Cox's clock and Drebbel's machine, which he calls trifles and will lead you astray. It rules out heated hot air balloon's technology, re. Heron's heat engine temple tricks. And it can't be pneumatic or hydraulic levers because Pascal had already invented them in 1680 with his hydraulic press.

Bernoulli's principle wasn't formalized until 1738 and lead the way to the venturi effect.

Whatever he physically enacted to either cause a displacement or retard a movement then your theory about Karl and a buyer not wanting to pay for the technology is plausible. Because it was TOO simple.

We know B. was interested in wind. He built air guns. He built organs that used wind boxes and had fluttering reads. He saw how air could be compressed and used to do work (Pascal). He also saw the fluttering reads of musical instruments including his organ craft and possibly deduced the basics of Bernoulli's principle, perhaps before Bernoulli. Perhaps a practical deduction to use a shape and air flow to create a venturi aperture creating a LOW pressure zone, and then let atmospheric pressure do the Work to fill the partial vacuum. He had experience with bellows with one-way valves.

e.g. a lateral thinking but simple answer (n.b. not a pneumatic or hydraulic lever analogue f1 x d2 = f2 x d1) to supplement the pure mechanical shortcomings !

If purely mechanical pm is truly impossible then I think Bessler's secret must involve some interaction between the moving mechanism and the air it moves through. We know he was very interested in air.

Off-the-cuff .. My feelings, having investigated aerodynamic lift and drag forces all those years ago, is that the enclosed wheel is very problematic to the harnessing of the lift force. Even tho the lift force ( f x d ) can far exceed the energy cost in drag force ( f x d ) of an aerodynamic shape giving a strong theoretical surplus of f x d i.e. COP > 1.0. He would have been truly before his time and I imagine even Karl would be impressed with the down-line possibilities it might conjure for any buyer. So I don't think he went directly to the relationship of shape, air movement, and flight.

In my mind this leaves a few possibilities. As mentioned earlier a physical venturi effect to create a LOW pressure zone which the atmosphere surrounding the wheel moved to fill, so doing Work on the wheel. Even tho Torricelli had invented the water and mercury barometer in 1643, Bernoulli later showed it could be manipulated with his principle (after Bessler).

Another perhaps simple application of pressure differentials that are manufactured could be the concepts of how an air or oil shock works (or force pump), with one-way valves. Free movement in one direction and retarded movement in the opposite. A variation on how a force bellows works. Shocks can work like springs without the mass of a spring. Or they can simply be to restrict rapid flow of air from one quarter to another. Which is somehow beneficial to shifting a wheels system COM (by retarding gravity induced movement ?). He would have perhaps seen this possibility in his organ craft.

Can you think of any other SIMPLE applications of static and dynamic air movement that would be so basic as to not be worth the asking price to a buyer, and Karl ? It has to be so simple that we barely spare it any thought today.

Find them first and then later we can think about how they may augment a purely mechanical OB wheel design.

[ovyyus]

Can you think of any other SIMPLE applications of static and dynamic air movement that would be so basic as to not be worth the asking price to a buyer, and Karl ? It has to be so simple that we barely spare it any thought today.

A spring catapult with a shaped arm/weight that develops a force gain as it accelerates through the air might seem a little underwhelming to a buyer who just paid 100000 Thalers for it.

A hollow turning wheel is a natural air pump as it throws air out at the rim and draws air in at the axle. Simple rim flap valves might control airflow within the wheel (perhaps over a mechanism), relative to the horizon. An empty wheel might seem like a rip-off.

[Fletcher]

Wagner's 1st Critique :

XXIX. On page I, line 12 seq., the defender assures his readers that the principle of the motion depends on no external assistance, driving, etc., but is solely and simply concealed within. I never doubted that the principle is concealed within the wheel, but it is false to say that the motion depends solely on the internally concealed weights, for the impossibility has already been shown sufficiently above. The weights distributed over the circumference of the wheel give it such a powerfully moving force that a load hung from it does not weaken the rotations noticeably. The internal clatter and rattle do not imply a constant alternation of rising and falling; rather the clatter might depend partly on the turning of the weights in the compartments and partly on a completely separate clapping apparatus. Almost no clatter and rattle was to be heard with the Draschwitz wheel; the wheel was made up of 8 spokes and was completely empty near the circumference, as one could see through the various cracks in the casing made of thin splinters, but there was not the slightest trace of a rising and falling weight to be heard or seen.

[raj]

JUST rolling WEIGHTS!!!

Simpler, there is none.

FIND the perfect track for multiple weights to race/roll on, their motion will provide angular momentum for wheel rotation.

[Tarsier79]

How did he know there was eight spokes?

[ovyyus]

Tarsier79, the Draschwitz wheel was covered with thin planks so he may have seen 8 radial lines of nails?

Fletcher, we should probably bear in mind Wagner's proposed solution to Bessler's wheel, which had nothing special located at the rim. It wouldn't be the first time someone's pet theory hijacked their perspective.

Teuber's letter to Leibniz describes the Draschwitz wheel very differently. I think the 'great force and noise' described by Teuber was probably caused by the attached stampers, and with the stampers disconnected the wheel might have rotated silently as described by Wagner. It's constantly amazing how two witnesses of the same supposed thing can report two completely different experiences!

'...I have some very important news for you. A man of the medical profession, called Orffyreus, has constructed an alleged perpetual motion machine in the nearby village of Draschwitz, to which he recently moved. This machine was shown to Mr. Buchta and I. It is a hollow wheel of wood, ten feet in diameter, and 6 inches thick. It is covered by thin wooden planks in order to hide the internal mechanism. The axle is also wooden, and extends one foot beyond the wheel. It has three teeth which are for moving three wooden stamps similar to those used in pounding mills. The stamps are quite heavy and are lifted and dropped continuously. The iron journals move in open bearings so as to show that neither deception nor an external energy supply are necessary to the machine's motion.
Having made an appointment with the inventor, we approached the machine and noticed that it was secured by a cord to the rim of the wheel. Upon the cord being released, the machine began to rotate with great force and noise, maintaining its speed without increasing or decreasing it for some considerable time. To stop the wheel and retie the cords required tremendous effort. The inventor is asking for one hundred thousand Thalers to reveal the mechanism or sell the machine.' - Letter from Teuber to Leibniz, 19th January, 1714