The Clockwork approach

[10x]

It sounds like he doesn't talking about leverage.

It does sound like leverage. Just shifting the light weight to the axle (wheel) and letting the heavy side drive the wheel and move the lighter one back to position to reset the lever.

[P-Motion]

In a grandfather clock, do you think it is possible to reverse the direction of the weights ?
Basically, one goes up while the other goes down, then they have to be reset.
Do you think he figured out how to reverse their effect ? It could he was refering to a pulley.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/clock.htm
Jim

Gregory,

I've made simulations that appear to wind up. Nothing real yet.

Hi 007,

That's great. I've also made the first test on my new idea and it appeared to keep moving. However it is too rough for a sim to be trusted entirely, it showed me the necessary promise I looked for to continue my search.

By the way, my word-play 'Clockwork' is not to be taken literally.
The idea is similar in logic, in the build up & the function of the machine components, but principally it is not the same mechanism as the one in a clock.

In my idea the assisting force is not coming from a spring, nor coming from gravity, but from the 'weights themselves', as Bessler may played on these words in this meaning... (I guess)

Imo, he is saying that the force he found for his principle wasn't at all well known or understood in his day & therefore most unlikely to be recognized [by even learned, clear thinking men] for the potential it promised & he alone used in his wheels, where he did get "something perceived to be for nothing".

You put that very nicely Fletcher! Thanks.
I can only agree and hope for the same to be the truth.

[james kelly]

Pete; That saying of besslers is very misleading. None of those things that bessler said were necessary for free energy. Once it is acheived ,many different approaches are possible. You develope a totaly different view point. A good unit would run in any position. even outer space. jl kelly

[winkle]

would CF in a spinning spaceship act the same on a gravity wheel as real gravity ?

[Clarkie]

OK, what about this one.

"one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound." - "What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!'" - pg 342


Pete.

[P-Motion]

Greg,
When I mentioned a pulley, I was referring to a hoist.
I am not sure if it is possible to have a 3 pulley hoist. It would take something like that for such a mechanism to reverse its' direction.
It could be he figured out how to switch weights/ropes when it had travelled as much as allowed in one direction.

Anyway, it seems clear for me that it is the only way he was saying.
The mechanism must be over the efficiency, ability & restrictions of normal leverage trade off.

But he clearly put: there is no other way.


Lift more with less,
Or more likely in the meaning of: Lift more with (his) something which is actually less.

[Gregory]

It does sound like leverage. Just shifting the light weight to the axle (wheel) and letting the heavy side drive the wheel and move the lighter one back to position to reset the lever.

No, for me it doesn't.
Just shifting this or that weight to anywhere won't work, we know it, and so Bessler knew. Therefore it couldn't be leverage, he had to mean something else.

[Gregory]

In a grandfather clock, do you think it is possible to reverse the direction of the weights ?
Basically, one goes up while the other goes down, then they have to be reset.
Do you think he figured out how to reverse their effect ? It could he was refering to a pulley.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/clock.htm

Well, I think Bessler didn't deal with a grandfather clock in his machine. He said he didn't used the weights through the way they are usually used in clocks. However he was too a watchmaker or something like that, which can have some importance.
But i think we can't trick a clock to be PM in any way, unless Bessler's secret method is applied to it. (if it exist) But we don't know how he had done it.

So... searching in the dark...

[Gregory]

OK, what about this one.

"one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound." - "What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!'" - pg 342


Pete.

Ok,

Before interpreting this clue, we have to see on an important thing:
We know that trading width for height does not work. Bessler knew it too.

Now, read the sentence again... one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound.

1. He is saying he really can raise more with less. It is not just trading width for height.
2. He says he can teach it!
3. He says people can understand it!

True, he didn't tell us how he exactly meant that, but he gave out the clue.

[Gregory]

And what about this one:

"The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied". - pg 362


He is saying there was such a thing exist, as the wheel's own inner force.

It would be a very mad way of referring to an OOB wheel, don't you think? It is simply not that, he referring to something else. We just can't get it. And otherwise he is quite right: We can't get something from nothing!

I assume this inner force came into being when his wheels begin to rotate. The motion itself generated, while the mechanism controlled and made use of it.

The only question is: What was it, and how it can be done?

[Fletcher]

OK, what about this one.

"one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound." - "What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!'" - pg 342


Pete.

Ok Pete .. all of us know how to raise more than one pound with one pound - but we are obliged to stick to the rules of leverage i.e. a smaller weight/mass can lift a larger one provided it is further from the fulcrum - the smaller mass has to move a greater distance vertically than the heavier one being lifted [this is a radius from the fulcrum function] - this means that with no losses accounted for, at best, the work done each side of the fulcrum is the same/equal, when balanced.

No surprises there ! - we know this & Bessler knew this [he had been trying to break this work done symmetry with his various types of OOB wheels for 10 years, just like everybody else].

So Bessler can't mean 'using the ordinary leverage scenario & laws' as this would be obvious to everybody with any mechanical experience - so he must mean that he has a way that doesn't use only mechanical leverage laws

What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application?

- it has another mechanical principle [something of the physical world] that he can use in conjunction with ordinary mechanical leverage to achieve the seemingly impossible i.e. small mass lifts a larger mass without the normal tradeoff of distance from the fulcrum & distance mass is moved to achieve this - we know he says "what if I were to teach the proper mechanical application" so we know it is a mechanical process i.e. tangible, physical, real - but its not leverage as we know it.

This is where things become more speculative imo, without any real steer from him of what his Prime Mover force was/is - we know that ordinary leverage rules always apply & if you want to change the radius relationship or distance moved aspect then the only thing we can do is add energy into the system [one side of the fulcrum] from elsewhere - this additional energy or force will compensate for you breaking the symmetry of leverage i.e. work done by gravity acting on masses about a fulcrum.

This is where I believe we mostly get side tracked - we automatically start thinking of leverage devices [because Bessler has planted the seed/picture in our minds based on what we already know, its hard to shake off] - we look for ways to augment leverage devices by trying to break the leverage relationship that always exists in every mechanical device - BUT - what if there is a way that Bessler achieved lifting more with less but it used external force & energy to do this & it supplemented/augmented ordinary leverage techniques - then he could achieve an OOB wheel that could move weights further or closer from the axle & create superior overbalance that would then have constant downgoing torque - this thought example relates directly to how Bessler may have been able to achieve his "mechanical application" i.e. it may be that he knew how to lift more with less [outside of normal leverage constraints] but that it could only be done by using his wheel - wheels like his were used as construction cranes before & during his time in Europe [they were like man powered hamster wheels] - it is my contention that Bessler could only show/"teach the proper method of mechanical application" in the form/context of his reduced geared wheel for lifting any sort of load - not in the ordinary sense of a familiar see-saw leverage example. JMO's.

EDIT: Greg got in b4 I finished typing - got to get quicker fingers :)

[Bessler007]

Hello Gregory,

It isn't likely a mechanism that would work in a clock would in a wheel. If you're saying the function of a clock being wound has to happen in a wheel then we agree. I've posted the results from wm2d of rises in potential energy. That is basically the same as what has to happen to a gravity powered clock for it to run. It needs to be wound.

....
By the way, my word-play 'Clockwork' is not to be taken literally.....

There is a distinct theory behind the simulations I've designed that increase in potential energy.

In my idea the assisting force is not coming from a spring, nor coming from gravity, but from the 'weights themselves',

Are you suggesting radioactivity? :) When I read 'the weights themselves' I exclude everything but the actual mass or substance.

However it is too rough for a sim to be trusted entirely, it showed me the necessary promise I looked for to continue my search.

Working model is a good tool if you only are looking for an answer. If you want an accurate and correct answer you need a simulator that knows where you've defined bodies.

Working model is to a real simulator as a soapbox derby is to a nascar. There's really no comparison. wm2d is a sophisticated toy.

[Bessler007]

Gregory,

Now I recall what you were looking at when you first joined the forum. Rotational energy held at a short radius.

There is energy in that but to get any meaningful work from it you're going to need high rpm's.

Are you suggesting radioactivity? :) When I read 'the weights themselves' I exclude everything but the actual mass or substance.

[Gregory]

Hello Bessler007,

Yes, I meant something like that.

Are you suggesting radioactivity? :) When I read 'the weights themselves' I exclude everything but the actual mass or substance.

I am suggesting this: Why weights of different masses fall with the same acceleration & speed inside the Earth's gravity field when we consider no aerodynamics, no friction, etc. ?

One just need to count the main properties of mass itself.
It has an amount of material. It has gravitational force. And it has ...

Working model is to a real simulator as a soapbox derby is to a nascar.

Yes, I can agree. But you know! You have to win the soapbox race first in order to get inside nascar. ;)

[Bessler007]

Gregory,

Different values of masses falling at the same rate require different forces to stop them. I don't really see anything special there. Now, unless.... :)

No, nothing special as far as I can tell.