How many principles did Bessler have?

[WaltzCee]

A good contempoary meaning for principle might be theory of operation.

A claim buttressed by a theory of operation would be more credible.

• Theory of Operation: Generally speaking Newton's third law (N3)
  is practical and predictive.
  
  • For every action there's an opposite and equal reaction.

• That understanding landed man on the moon. However there are
  two special cases barring N3 from being a serious objection to
  perpetual motion (PM).
  
  Here is the first case. Imagine catching or trapping this alleged reaction
  and storing it rather than allowing that energy to cascade and disapate
  throughout the wheel, reverting to some mean causing the entire process
  to keel. Instead spend this energy when it's more productive. Also rather
  than stopping then restarting the alleged reaction you redirect it. If this
  can be mechanically accomplished it would be like drawing an arrow, then
  letting it fly right into the heart of N3. The reaction wouldn't be opposite
  if it were redirected and it wouldn't be equal if you send it down a zig zag! (I have
  patented the zig zag and expect to get a Nobel for that discovery.)
  
  The second case has an elegance and beauty almost beyond words.
  et cetera.

[Robinhood46]

WaltzCee,
I would have thought that "theory of operation" would be associated to the mechanism(s) that is allowing the movement to happen.
I see the principal as the objective as to what the weights must do.

The objective of football is to put the ball in the goal.
Any part of your body, other than your arm (unless your name is Maradona) can be the mechanism by which you do this.

The principal is the way the weights dance around the wheel and not the mechanism that allows them to dance in this manner.
The way the weights dance around the wheel can only be in one manner.
The mechanism that causes the weights to dance in this manner, can be numerous. Therefore there is only one principal.

[WaltzCee]

Barn door, manure. Come tally view.

Premise: I would have thought that "theory of operation" would be associated to the
mechanism(s)
Conclusion: The mechanism that causes the weights to dance in this manner, can be
numerous. Therefore there is only one principal.

Hmmm.

• *How do you decide which <air quotes> mechanism </air quotes> to associate
  with any given theory of operation?
  
  *If you associate 2 different mechanisms to the same theory of operation, would
  that give you 2 different theories.

Defining the terms of this process has the benefit of getting everyone on the same page.
No matter what it's called, any solution should address the physicist's objection. As an
example I cited two special cases where N3 is as irrelevant as any mechanism used
to violate it.

The first case is mechanical with various forms.
The second case . . . disproves N3.

Newton was a liar. There, I said it.

[WaltzCee]

An arrow needs a target !

True. I was expecting you to read my mind then tell me what I was thinking
so we'd both know.

Some real questions are

• * Which came first, the arrow or the Fletcher?
  * how can this arrow (energy) be captured with no associated penalty/reaction
  to the whole process?

[Robinhood46]

Being on the same page is a good idea, although not that easy to achieve.
It is as though we are all inventing a new language, to try and explain our way of understanding the alternative approaches we hope will get us nearer to understanding what it is we are collectively understanding wrong.

In my view, if the weights are lifted by levers then this is one theory of operation. If they are lifted by ropes and pulleys this is another theory of operation.
In both cases the weights take the same path, so they would be one and the same principal.

I don't think Newton lied, i think he made a mistake when he applied his logic to a rotating frame.

[Fletcher]

Mornin .. I read both your posts a couple of times before bursting into print. I think we are pretty much on the same page. Attempting to quantify and label B's. use of the word principle in different places and contexts.

Funnily enough Walt, when I read "principle" in MT I kinda substitute 'mechanical operation' (factual/real) in my mind rather than 'theory of operation', i.e. a predictable behaviour expected, or linear process to an outcome, if, a defined chain of events is followed.

Whilst the "principle" of PM is another thing entirely for me. That being more like RH's thoughts. A hazy 'objective' (because it is presently not defined in Physics Laws and Mathematical Language) to be implemented and enacted in the mechanical and physical realm, that theoretically leads to some physical outcome. In this case rarefied PM or OU.

And so I move on to what form could that principle of PM take ? What could be at its foundation ? The physical, practical, get your hands dirty kind ?

And I arrive at what you have described Walt. An N3 break, or violation, as it is sometimes labeled. What is more traditionally thought of as upsetting the binary nature of Action and Reaction. Creating a mechanical bias.

"For every action there's an opposite and equal reaction."

Or what is sometimes referred too as beating the back-torque issues ! These being the great equalizer and leveler of many a mans lofty dreams.

And so you have elegantly described in your 'first case' the theoretical process of redirecting the reaction force into a bias, as a foundation presumption of the theory.

Once again I agree with you. FWIW in the comfort of my man-cave I use a much shorter, more casual, if not glib, description, if less detailed and focused. Which I think means the same thing, imo.

"Turn a negative into a positive".

And I think about what that could mean in practical terms. Redirecting a reactionary force into a positive bias. Or perhaps a mechanical method to break the Conservation Laws of Momentum and Energy. As many of my sim experiments over the years have attempted to do i.e. allow a moving mass to interact with another and transfer ALL its momentum to the other so that COE is violated and the recipient gains more KE than imparted from the donor. Heresy at its finest !

If I could solve either mental exercise mechanically, tho I think they are the same thing, I would be a happy camper indeed lol. It helps to at least have drawn a bead on what I/we believe we are chasing down !

[Fletcher]

When the dust settles .. this practical problem was not solved by a mathematician, nor a philosopher, or a wordsmith*. It was solved by a mechanic who did many many experiments until eventually a moment of inspiration came along. *Not that he wasn't those thing as well.

And Karl had confidence that what he was looking at was real, and easy to understand, and simple to build. He probably understood its functioning almost immediately, to calmly say those things about it.

That means there is a simple (very) and practical mechanical solution to be found. Face palm simple. Let's have at it !

[WaltzCee]

I appreciate all the comments yet especially yours Fletcher. I intend to name this
prime mover The Fletcher. It doesn't disprove N3, yet it does nullify it. That's
the first case, a mechanical answer to N3.

• The Fletcher: A mechanical contrivance that catches and stores RKE using
  some of that energy to negate the counter torque produced to collect it. This
  mechanism will sense the appropriate time and place to send that energy then
  create an arrow (hence The Fletcher) and strike the proper point at the precise time.

The second case is the death knell for N3. Calling Newton a liar maybe was a bit harsh.
He just wasn't telling the truth. :)

• Walter's First Law of Motion: For some actions there exists a reaction that is
  neither opposite nor equal. This absolutely is a function of time and space.

[gravitationallychallenged]

@ WaltCee- I like your arrow analogy and the storage of kinetic energy in a spring. The only problem with an arrow is that it can't fly through the center of rotation or centripetal force will capture it. All slave weight movements must remain outside the center of rotation.

@ Fletcher- I agree, the solution will be found through experimentation, through trial and error, when the builder eventually discovers the correct mechanical principals. Bessler wrote that excess weight, a lighter weight being able to lift a heavier weight and connectedness were important principals.

I'm convinced Bessler used heavy centrally located weights to achieve continuous rotation. The small distances traveled near the center of rotation in relation to the vast distances traveled near the perimeter of the wheel creates a huge speed differential. The speed of weights falling near the center of rotation remains constant because of gravity. Gravity will be faster than the rotation of the wheel near the center of rotation until operating speed has been achieved. The heavy weights have the potential to 'hammer' lighter weights to their desired positions whether extended or retracted. The weights at the perimeter on the down side of the wheel lift the weights that have shifted nearer to the center on the up side of the wheel. Bessler kept increasing the diameter of his wheels to take advantage of the speed differential and of the leverage provided by a large radius. The toy page illustrates mechanisms that could be used to move weights great distances.

Magnetic and electrical devices capitalize on polarity differentials. Sterling engines capitalize on heat differentials. Refrigeration systems capitalize on heat differentials. A gravity wheel must capitalize on speed, leverage and weight differentials.

Here are some principals that may help: The prime mover must move in a way that centrifugal or centripetal force will not interfere with its motion. It must fall with enough force to propel slave weights into their positions with great enough speed to keep up with wheel rotation. Slave weights must be positioned outside of the center of rotation and moved in the correct motion, with enough force, that they will overcome centrifugal force. Bessler emphasized the speed in which the weights which were located 'below' were lifted. A weight that is under the tension of a spring at each end of its range of movement can be moved much faster than a dead weight. Bessler wrote that the weights gained force by their movement, so there must have been a connection between the weights, a type of feedback loop. He also wrote that one side of his wheel was empty while the other side was full.

Bessler wrote that his friends removed bolts from the axle area of the wheel which regulated the motion of its mechanism and that the axle contained many holes and compartments. Perhaps the AP wheel contains clues as to the arrangement and movement of the weights within the axle compartments or the shape of those compartments.

[unstable]

It is all very intriguing and fascinating but the main point remains obscure. Where would the excess energy come from?

[agor95]

Hello unstable

Where would the excess energy come from?

That is one of the key questions asked many times in the forum.
Along with 'How do we break Newton's Third Law'?

Regards

[WaltzCee]

@ WaltCee- I like your arrow analogy and the storage of kinetic energy in a spring. The only problem with an arrow is that it can't fly through the center of rotation or centripetal force will capture it. All slave weight movements must remain outside the center of rotation.

gravitationallychallenged,

The Fletcher can process a pair of counter torques then aim them at each other at a future
time and place. Georg is the expert with feed forward systems. I wonder what his patent
looks like.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Agor95,
the wheel does not break N3.
It redirects forces on one side of the wheel (downgoing side) against gravity.
The redirection acceleration is greater than g.

The additional energy excess energy is coming from gravity only.
Gravity has to do the work twice.
Here you have to find the correct angle under that it will happen.

The impact/hit what was heard is an essential key of the movement.
This is necessary for the bi-directional wheel.

gravitationallychallenged wrote

A gravity wheel must capitalize on speed, leverage and weight differentials.

the wheel combines all this three key factors.
1. it is variating the speed,
2. it is variating the lever,
3. it is variating the weight due to different accelerations

In my opinion Bessler has used 2 different principles.
the first principle he has used in his one directional wheel,
self starting, this one we can use to power our houses.
It is using no impacts.

The second one he used in his Bi-directional wheel, where the activation is done with the first impact.

[WaltzCee]

Georg,
Where can we review your patent? What do you plan on doing with it?

[agor95]

Hello Georg Künstler

When I replied to unstable it was about questions asked.

That does not mean all members ask them or implement solutions that need them.

I for one have taken the exit on N3 (Newtons Third Law) breaking.

I am thinking about Bessler's Kinematics which predate Newton. Therefore in his time N3 did not exist.

Bessler's work was based on his understanding of Kinematics and that is what needs to be recovered.

All the Best