The Clockwork approach

[Fletcher]

Quite right imo - 'he found it where everybody else had looked', with a twist or should that be with an addition ;)

[jim_mich]

Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way.

This we call trading height for width. It is the reason why science says that PM is impossible. But sadly this is where most mobile-makers look. Trying to make weights to be a little more distant from the center (out of balance) doesn't work by itself. The weights must be animated; that is the motion of the weights must bring about more motion. This is different than out OOB trying to bring about OOB. Of course when you are able to make motion cause more motion then it can lift weights out of balance and then you also have OOB driving the wheel. It would seem that this was the case with the early wheels that self started. The later wheels may have been balanced all the time even when running. As such it was the impetus of the weight's motion that drove the wheel.

[Stewart]

...I think what he meant is it is not JUST an OOB wheel....

No doubt, just trying to persuade one weight to manuever itself further from the axle than a similar weight on the other side to perpetuate a movement is never going to happen....I think this is the basic premis he shows us in MT1-8...in and of themselves, they will never work....

Yes, that's exactly what I think he means and I've bolded the key part of your comment. Now look at what Bessler actually says and you'll see you are right:

Denn manche Mob'le-Macher dencken/
Wenn ihre Sachen sich nur lencken
Herauß ein wenig weiter hier
Als dort/ o! so wirds lauffen schier;

Because many a mobile-maker thinks,
if their things only guide themselves
out a little further here
than there, o! so it will just about run;


Having previously described to us an overbalance in his wheel, Bessler is now warning us that an overbalance on it's own is not going to work i.e. hoping that weights will guide themselves into an overbalance position like, as Steve says, in MT1 to MT8 (but also others) will not work.

So, Bessler's wheel turns because it is overbalanced but we need to use the overbalance with something else in order to maintain that overbalance.

Stewart

[AB Hammer]

Lets put it in very simple terms.

Every action has a reaction. The trick is control the reaction to make a better action. A clock does this, but that in this case, is not enough.

[Stewart]

I should have clarified that Bessler said in effect: overbalance by having one weight closer to the axle and one toward the rim was not the answer. I believe the experienced here will accept that.

It's not the whole answer, but a part of it - see my previous post which will hopefully clear up the part you thought was contradictory and was confusing you.

Stewart

[bluesgtr44]

MT's 11....15....18....24 and 25.....He says these are basically good concepts....so what's missing and how could it work with all of these arrangements. To me, that is how simple the principle is going to be. Just one thought, the mechanism or device...it would seem...has the ability to remove the weight from the main frame (wheel) on one side while the weights apply themselves fully on the other side. My thoughts on this possible scenario would keep the unit as a whole OOB all the time and would need to be tied off. To this end....there would have to be a constant force applied somewhere to maintain this mechanical advantage...and this device just might have to be designed to manuever in one direction, it can't go both ways. That is why he (pure conjecture here) had to back-to-back the bi-directional. When the roatation is not in the direction of that particular device....it assumes a middle position and just acts as a flywheel while the other device falls into place.

See, if the impetus device was inserted and had the ability to go either way, you have what you started with! It has to have a path and the path has to have a direction....now, all speculation here....this is just an image I have in mind when I think about how his wheels are described when working.

To do this would require 3 independant parts....the wheel, the device that will maintain the impressed force....and the mechanism that when it is compressed between the rim of the wheel and the holding device (you pull the device back, insert the mechanism...let the device fall back into place thus impressing the mechanism against the rim....and this could be all on just one side of the wheel. So, instead of starting with nothing....you have an impressed force.....now, the dadgummed thing needs a direction....and a path.....uhhh, this is where I run into issues....LMAO!


Steve

[turulato]

Steve,

Why not three independent mechanisms? Bessler drawing shows, a wheel, stamps and two pendulums. Is it possible that the wheel has weights inside that a slight push would unbalace the wheel and when it reaches the PQ the second mechanism takes over, then the third mechanism picks up after the second one reaches its PQ and the wheel pick up after the third reaches its PQ this way the three are working in a loop keeping each other moving?
Maybe we err in thinking that a single machanism will work and that is why we have not discover it. Bessler made many comments (clues to us) and we try to descipher from it, if he used three mechanisms like his drawings clearly show then he tells the truth but omits the fact that what he spoke of was to one of these mechanisms, and here we are deceived by his omisions trying to make it work with a single and simple arrangement of weights and levers. :-)

What say you?

Victor

[DrWhat]

The Apologia "wheel" has three arms. This may be symbolic of THREE mechanisms in action and nothing else.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Turulato....

Why not three independent mechanisms? Bessler drawing shows, a wheel, stamps and two pendulums.

I have not seen or read anything to lead me to believe that the pendulums shown in the Merseberg and Kassel drawings were anything other than what he claims....they were to assist in regulating the motion and could be applied externally. You know Turulato, I have not seen nor heard of these being demonstrated at either of these wheels. I cannot honestly say they ever were used or shown....

The stamps, IMO....were just that. They were to demonstrate viable work being performed.

I used the term "parts" and not "mechanisms" only because I term one a mechanism already....just trying to keep them separated....so I used wheel, mechanism and device. Turulato, I really doubt that anything he showed on the outside is going to be on the inside....I could be wrong, I just have my doubts.

I have had no success with pendulums of any sort as of yet and still fail to see how to control the swing without the typical loss that comes with it. I am not all that well familiar with them either...


Steve

[Gregory]

Good to come back and see my topic is alive.

To tell my opinion, (I suppose most of you aware of it)

I can agree with Fletcher, Stewart, and others...
I seriously think Bessler's wheel was a device consist of at least two essential components/subsystems, one is for the overbalance, and we can say this is the OOB mechanism which make use of the gravity force while weight are falling. While the other subsystem is responsible to "negate" gravity and lift up the weights of the OOB mechanism. ----> Therefore a gain can appear, as long as we can lift the weights for less energy than in a usual leverage system. And I believe the point is, that it cannot be done with the usual trade width for height and other leverage systems.

A force independent from gravity must be present, and set into work. There is no other way, IMO.
(Jim mich is right, when he says this is why we are considered crackpots by science guys, and not he is only right, but this is the truth. This is why we have no chance to hope for success...)

Back to the parts of the imaginary device...
The OOB subsystem can be lots of things, basically any kind of simple mechanism which can be set into an out of balance condition. The second system (Prime mover) must provides an additional force for lifting weights and have to fit with some requirements:
1. It have to be in continuous synch with the OOB system, and the same time it must be (half) independent.
2. It have to work precisely in time, lags and unstable operation is not welcomed.
3. It must be efficient enough for the task, retain the power of its own movement, and doesn't lose any energy if possible.
4. Must provides an independent, "free force" to utilize.

In conclusion, for me it looks like, it is not just a bunch of levers and warped boards... :-)

So, What the hell can it be?
Anybody knows a mechanism capable of these requirements is highly welcomed to show us. I would be very interested to know one...

[AB Hammer]

In Besslers wheel

There was at least 2 defined types of weight sets that worked in conjunction, and one activated the other. This would be of the 12 ft wheel that I have in design and blueprinted from everything I have read, and at 12 foot approximately 20 rounds a minute. I feal this is true for the math say that is will move both ways equally with the same power. But I feel that it can be a little more efficient if it gets reduced to a single way that will give me 5% to 10% more by reducing the 1 effect that reverses it. This is the wheel that I hope to prove Bessler's claim. I will show it when I get it built but it has to be after I finish the ones for patent, which are of my own design.

[DrWhat]

AB, I went the provisional patent route and wasted money as what I was sure would work, in fact didn't. I would strongly suggest to you that you complete working models before starting the patent process. Just a friendly suggestion.

[AB Hammer]

DrWhat

You are correct, I won't patent until I have a working model, but I do have a devise (not a wheel) that is patentable, and I hope to have at least 2 of my wheels to go with it when I travel to the patent office. I will also be open sourcing a 3rd working model as well, it is called the triangle wheel.

[P-Motion]

Fletcher,
It does help to understand what he is talking about.
From what I have seen of his writings, he always used "other words". He didn't described something for what it actually was. In short, he made a word puzzle.
Even his wheel used a well known code for its' name. The letters were opposite by the alphabet. When he described his axles, he has siad compartments.
Yet from what I have read, everybody keeps taking him literally.
You see, " Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall" , he is talking about the amount of over-balance.
To leverage the weights otherwise will result in more work needing to be accomplished.
Now to mention the exception to the rule.
He might have somehow had a set-up that allowed the weght that is furthest from center to retract the weight below it at a 4:1 ratio. This would mean that 80% of its' work would be to cause rotation while the other 20% would be used to retract a weight.
If so, this would help to dtermine the distance that the weights were extended. Pi x r / 8 / 4 = distance extended.
It is possible that he just figured, for every inch of vertical downward travel, 1/4 inch of upward travel.
If so, then the calculation would be done differently.

Going to put this out there.....AP, pg 295-296...J. Collins

"But I would just like to add this friendly little note of caution:- A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself, But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain. He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weight here and there, The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty! Have you ever seen a crowd of starlings squabbling angrily over the crumbs on a stationary mill-wheel? That's what it would be like for such a fellow and his invention, as I know only too well from my own recent experience!

I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience. There's a lot more to matters of mechanics than I've revealed to date, but since there's no urgent need involved, I'll refrain from giving more information at the moment."

I agree with you, Stewart....that is not exactly what he is saying... Steve

Steve .. how many of us have read this statement by Bessler & assumed he was directly challenging us to break the laws of leverage ? Assumed he was implying that he was the only one who could solve this conundrum of 'lifting more with less' whilst not being constrained by the laws of leverage & unless you could too, you also were doomed to fail [as he learnt the hard way] ?

There is another interpretation possible ! He is saying that no one can achieve the impossible, even he i.e. break the laws of leverage - therefore you must look for another way to solve the mystery of the over-balanced wheel - a way that he alone found - obviously, it still involved physical principles [was provable in physics/natural laws] & was the source of energy he needed to complete the over-balancing task & neatly supplement the laws of leverage that all others are obliged to religiously stick too, without his prime mover principle.

My belief is that he too had to stick to laws of leverage [just like everybody else] but that he found supplementary energy to add to the system ! In essence he is saying, even he is not a magician & should not be regarded as so, & is obliged to stick to the laws of physics - the challenge being to find his principle of weight shifting that he used !

[Fletcher]

In reply to P-Motion & Steve's earlier post ..

To understand what he is saying, you need to realize where he was generating his force ???.

I am in basic agreement with you P about where & what the minimum overbalancing torque must be i.e. the weight must move outwards [to a greater radius/orbit] in the lower quadrant in the direction of rotation - then the weight must be retracted to a closer orbit to the axle & this is where all OOB designs [on their own] fail - there is insufficient torque generated to give enough momentum to the wheel to rotate it thru & beyond each geometric segment [8 if you have 8 spokes & weights] & so it can not 'retract' the weight in front of it to its starting potential & position as this involves lifting the weight thru a vertical component, which after system losses, takes greater energy than the OOB torque can ever supply - if you don't believe me try building a few similar test wheels & see what happens ?

In Bessler's MT he shows OOB systems starting at 9 [many are variations on the basic 9 setup] - curiously he slips in MT's 12 & 13 which show a lifting force is required yet we know that ramps don't work because of induced back torque [action & reactions] - from 14 onwards he introduces the concept of superior overbalance to show the extra torque he could achieve if you could only move the weights without back torque penalty so that the wheels could accumulate momentum instead of zero summing it - the superior overbalance is really rammed home in 15 but this is not the minimum amount of overbalance required but more an extreme overabundance example - 22; 24 & 25 show more ways to achieve superior overbalance with an OOB system - the question is to look for the common elements of these series of designs - then go back to 17 & 18 - 17 is a straight forward no go while he seems to suggest that 18 could be tweaked to make it self sustaining - in reality what he is showing is that weights must move in & out from the axle - at the same time he is demonstrating the common failure of OOB systems where we end up trading height for width, which leads to balanced torque at the PQ position.

Imo he has covered the additional elements of OOB designs that they need to be successful 1. overbalance : superior preferred 2. a method to lift/shift weights at the appropriate time.

a.k.a. his Prime Mover !