The Solution To Bessler's Wheel

[jim_mich]

He contradicts himself so many times that it is hard to fathom the truth.
And the more he rants at the unbelievers who continually wind him up, the more his clues become blurred. It seems to me the only writings that resemble any shred of truth are those he wrote when the critics were quiet.

Can you show where Bessler contradicts himself? His clues seem very clear to me. You seem to imply that his writings were untruthful; can you show any evidence of this?

[DrWhat]

If you read AP, you will find that Bessler was exceedingly intelligent and clever.

[KAS]

Jim,
It depends on one's interpretation but this first quote here for instance appears to contradict other statements.


"It revolves, but without other wheels inside or outside,
and without weights, wind, or springs".
- Bessler

"Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested".
- Bessler

"Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights"
- Bessler


"Machine was set in motion by weights".
- Bessler

Kas

[evgwheel]

Assume that Bessler was all the above, was it only his greed, the reason that we have no working wheel?
Edit: posted at same time as kas post

[jim_mich]

Kas, when you take words out of context of what Bessler was talking about then it might seem confusing. When Bessler made the statement that "It revolves, but without other wheels inside or outside, and without weights, wind, or springs" he was talking specifically about conventional means of powering a wheel. These includes dropping weights such as used in cuckoo clocks and wind-up springs such as used in other wind-up of clocks.

Also this quote is from a poem and most people understand that poems are made to rhyme rather than made to be clearly understood. In the lines before this he talks about "fat, lazy, plump horses" and later he talks of, "A crab crawls from side to side." This one whole poem is all total analogies and such where you are not expected to take everything literally.


evgwheel, I think the reason that we have no working wheel is that we are looking in the wrong place for a solution. Most look for a wheel that unbalances and thus gets turned by gravity. I truly think this is the wrong place to look.

[evgwheel]

Against all accepted laws (accepted by majority) I still belief Bessler’s wheel or over-unity is possible (or CF for some members). But accepting anything, without scrutinizing would be foolish. I have given many interviews over several years, reported in the press and other electronic media, my own family would ring up and ask, is that true, what they said or printed? In one day I was anything between 30 and 50 years old. My expenditure was anything between $10000 and $60000. My involvement in that project was anything between one year and ten years. (And that were only the facts, the personal feeling related stories, were made up by reporters (fairy tale writers)) The list goes on and is disturbing that reports are so misleading, even if they get them from the horses mouth.

[ovyyus]

I think the reason that we have no working wheel is that we are looking in the wrong place for a solution. Most look for a wheel that unbalances and thus gets turned by gravity. I truly think this is the wrong place to look.

While I do agree with the first part of your statement, I don't agree with the last part. The reported observations of Bessler's first two uni-direction wheels suggest they were clearly in a state of constant unbalance, even at rest. I can't see how you can get around those eyewitness reports, Jim.

[axel]

EDIT

[jim_mich]

Bill, the fact is that it takes the same energy to raise a weight up as the weight produces when it falls down. This is a very basic law of physics. What this means is that gravity can only turn a wheel when something lifts the weights up so that they can fall and turn the wheel. And that something cannot be gravity because gravity always balances.

When gravity is the only force on a proposed OOB wheel then no matter what path a weight travels the wheel will not self turn, for gravity always balances on each side of the axle. A self turning wheel requires some force other than gravity in order to work. This fact has been know since before Bessler's time.

Yes, the early wheels were always OOB, but physics laws dictate that when OOB powers a wheel then the energy must be replenished sometime during the cycle. It would seem that the cause or source of the excess energy must come about due to the motion of the weight rather than than from some special path.

If motion can lift weights out of balance then it can also power a wheel directly without using gravity. Bessler's early wheels had some unknown method that lifted the weights so that they could fall and turn his wheels. His later wheels were balanced when stationary. It's very likely that they were balanced when rotating. It seems that some unknown method of motion produced force that drove them in circles. If motion can push a wheel in circles it can also lift weights OOB.

So, I'll say it a different way, I truly think that looking for a way to make a wheel be OOB is the wrong place to look. We should be looking for motion as a cause whereby forces become unbalanced. After we find a way for motion to cause unbalanced force then we can use that unbalanced force to lift weights or to push a wheel directly.

For these reasons I see no conflict or problem concerning the early wheels being turned by gravity and me saying that gravity is the wrong place to look for a solution.

[evgwheel]

News flash
Bessler wheel reported to turn clockwise, whilst other honorable person at the same time reported that it turned anti-clockwise. (Nobody reported that they stood on different sides of the wheel lol)

[rmd3]

A self turning wheel requires some force other than gravity in order to work. This fact has been know since before Bessler's time.

Reference, please.

Non-working designs are not proof that a working design isn't possible.

mgh=KE is a basic physics formula, indeed - for the basic physical activity of a mass experiencing a uniform acceleration in one direction.

If you are talking about a strict contiguous path of weights around a center point where such weights impart their weight at each point where they are within the wheel, I totally agree that it won't turn, and the mgh=KE is a valid justification in such a case.

However, when you consider that the force of a weight can be felt in one part of the wheel and then manipulated to be felt in a different part of the wheel through simple linkeages/mechanisms, then the whole mgh=KE is a bit difficult to apply as proof of impossibility.

Another way to say it is that mgh=KE is valid only for uniform acceleration of a mass, so if you change when and where it's mass affects the wheel (through a gravity driven mechanism), you've changed the acceleration of the mass in terms of magnitude and/or direction and can't rely on the mgh=KE forumal. The door is wide open to see how such manipulation could produce the desired OOB effect.

I don't discount that another non-gravity force might/could be used, but I've not seen evidence that would preclude all gravity driven mechanisms.

[ovyyus]

Jim, the first two uni-direction wheels, being constantly unbalanced, obviously used some method to lift the internal weights in order to create and maintain their unbalanced state. I agree that it can't be gravity alone. Therefore, some additional force acting on the weights must have been introduced into the system and, IMO, Bessler probably used the same basic principle in both his earlier uni-direction and his later dual-direction wheels.

Actually, I tend to favour Collins' speculation that the later dual-direction wheels were created from two counter-balanced back to back uni-direction systems. IMO, this seems the simplest and most elegant solution and, if true, it might suggest some interesting uni-direction system attributes, ie: when a uni-direction system is forced to rotate in reverse it loses forward torque proportional to reverse speed - hence the requirement for the dual-direction wheel push start from a (counter) balanced rest state.

How Bessler's additional force was applied to lift weights against gravity is obviously open to speculation, however, what might not be so open to speculation is the observation that any applied force capable of doing work (lifting weights against gravity) requires an energy source. A real energy source can usually be demonstrated at some fundamental level prior to exploitation by a given engine design.

I guess the only problem I have with your CF proposal is that there is no available demonstration that shows it as a real energy source. Actually, it's observed to be wholly conservative like gravity, as you know. That's why already proven thermodynamics seems a more plausible way forward to me, aside from obvious design and application difficulties :)

[jim_mich]

f you are talking about a strict contiguous path of weights around a center point where such weights impart their weight at each point where they are within the wheel, I totally agree that it won't turn, and the mgh=KE is a valid justification in such a case.

We both agree!

However, when you consider that the force of a weight can be felt in one part of the wheel and then manipulated to be felt in a different part of the wheel through simple linkeages/mechanisms, then the whole mgh=KE is a bit difficult to apply as proof of impossibility.

If the "weight" is felt in a different part of the wheel through linkages then once again everything balances.

Another way to say it is that mgh=KE is valid only for uniform acceleration of a mass, so if you change when and where it's mass affects the wheel (through a gravity driven mechanism), you've changed the acceleration of the mass in terms of magnitude and/or direction and can't rely on the mgh=KE forumal. The door is wide open to see how such manipulation could produce the desired OOB effect.

Now you're getting closer to the truth. No longer are you talking about simple gravitational up and down acceleration. You are now talking about changing/ fluctuating inertial momentum. And in some specific cases inertial momentum is called CF. Of course gravity can play a roll, but if the motion creates the extra force then gravity is only a minor auxilary player and can most likely be eliminated.

And as I stated, I feel we should be looking for motion as a cause whereby forces become unbalanced, rather than always looking at gravity.

but I've not seen evidence that would preclude all gravity driven mechanisms.

I don't preclude a mechanism that uses gravity as a driving force, but I do preclude it as being a primary or main driving force. See your first quote above as evidence. A weight must be lifted before it can fall and produce rotational force from gravity. If a weight gives up energy while falling so as to rotate the wheel then it will not have enough momentum energy to lift back up to the top against gravity. Therefore in order for a PM wheel to work the moving/swinging weight must cause energy to be derived from the motion of the weights rather than from gravity.

I guess the only problem I have with your CF proposal is that there is no available demonstration that shows it as a real energy source. Actually, it's observed to be wholly conservative like gravity, as you know.

Yes, I understand your concerns. I would love to post my explanation and show how I think it can be done. But patent laws being what they are I cannot do that just yet. The method does not seem to be "wholly conservative" as you say, but rather when the wheel rotates the weights swing and never again reach equilibrium until the wheel stops rotating. CF causes the weights to start swinging and when they are swinging CF causes them to swing even faster. Of course a weight swinging on a wheel must reach an end of swing. It's at that point that the weights are heard to bang against the wheel, thus driving it forward. Or optionally (like the early wheels) the swinging force can lift the weights OOB.

I'm working on building a POP wheel, but I'm an old man that no longer moves very fast and I'm a horrible procrastinator. One thing that has bugged me was how the bi-directional wheels might work using my method. Today I've cracked that nut. It's like John Collins suggests, two units placed side by side with one backward. The CF of the backward unit causes its weights to not swing and they just ride around on the wheel.

[rmd3]

Jim said...

If the "weight" is felt in a different part of the wheel through linkages then once again everything balances.

Not if the transfer of force("weight") leads to the set-up of the same mechanism which transfers the next force("weight") ad nauseum.

But that is what all of us are trying to come up with, isn't it (regardless of our pet theories)?

----

By the way, when you say you are a horrible procrastinator.... doesn't that mean that you get things done almost immediately?! :)

----

My general thinking about the whole thing is like this...

Don't we also have to consider if any/all/part/none of the miriad of mechanical arrangements of mechanisms are even attached to the wheel or just inside it (maybe resting on the axle)?

Can't we also have lapses in time when a weight is not felt by part of the wheel (such as dropping)?

With such a huge number of possibilities, I'm not giving up on gravity just yet.

----

[ovyyus]

I'm working on building a POP wheel, but I'm an old man that no longer moves very fast and I'm a horrible procrastinator.

I do understand, however, why go to all the trouble of building a complicated wheel in order to prove your theory? I think it hardly matters what form the application might take after you prove an available energy source.

If I wanted to prove that a steam engine was feasible I would simply drop a few cc's of water into a sealed tin can, drop the can in a fire and stand back. Or simply boil water in a can, seal the lid and watch atmospheric pressure do it's work. So simple. Only after an energy source has been demonstrated could we then move on to discuss and argue and patent steam engine design parameters til we're old and grey - oops, too late :D

IMO, a simple POP energy source would be a zillion times more convincing and useful than any variable application method could ever be.