The Solution To Bessler's Wheel

[DrWhat]

What I find interesting is how Bessler says "weights gained force from their own swinging, or movement".

Why does he refine the phrase to include "movement", as though he feels that "swinging" alone is not technically correct?

Once again if the translation is correct, either we have weights that swing AND move, or move in a way that is not exactly swinging, (perhaps swinging in relation to a viewer's perspective as the wheel turns, but not swinging at their local point).

More questions I know, but questions can lead to answers.

[Clarkie]

One swings, the other moves? Pairs of pairs!!!

Pete.

[jim_mich]

What I find interesting is how Bessler says "weights gained force from their own swinging, or movement".

Why does he refine the phrase to include "movement", as though he feels that "swinging" alone is not technically correct?

Bessler does not use two words "swing, or movement." He uses one single German word that can be translated as either swinging or more loosely as moving. Some members in the past complained that swinging may not be a correct translation, probably because it would exclude their pet theory. So we now use swinging/moving as the interpretation. It's up to each individual to decide what Bessler specifically meant. I now always use swinging/moving even though I think very strongly that Bessler meant swinging.

[Fletcher]

What I find interesting is how Bessler says "weights gained force from their own swinging, or movement".

Why does he refine the phrase to include "movement", as though he feels that "swinging" alone is not technically correct?

Once again if the translation is correct, either we have weights that swing AND move, or move in a way that is not exactly swinging, (perhaps swinging in relation to a viewer's perspective as the wheel turns, but not swinging at their local point).

More questions I know, but questions can lead to answers.

Here are the relevant translations as posted by Stewart in an older thread called "Gaining Force" - you'll note that the two translations appear quite different in interpretation with regards to whether there are weights gaining force from their own swinging or not, in the literal sense - that is why it is often also paraphrased to include swinging/movement.

If you look at the original DT Bessler writings [German & Latin side by side - bottom p26 & top p27 J Collins] then it becomes more obvious why the two translations seem quite different - the German says swinging [in relation to the disposed weights] while the Latin says impetus [impressed force, in relation to the rotating wheel] - it would appear that the translations below were based on the German for the first & the other on the Latin.

Since Bessler wrote in both Languages for DT & their meanings do not synchronize that well [are they talking about the same thing ?] then you are probably right Damien - both passages must be translated & their respective meanings overlaid for deeper meaning - for instance, the Latin version seems to be talking about an impressed force being required to get the movement of the wheel [perhaps in reference to the bi-directional wheels requiring a push] while the German seems to be talking about a similar thing, but specifically uses the word swunges/swinging [& there are better words to describe movement than swinging] in reference to the weights more so than the wheel IMO - so these are mixed messages with ambiguous meaning when read together - I would say there is an element of truth in both of them, meant to be combined to give a pointer & a more complete picture.

For my money I would say that the bi-directional wheels definitely needed an impressed force to get underway & accelerate but that the force that shifted the weights [derived from the PM principle] was from the movement of structures containing weights within the wheel - JMO's.

Perhaps if Stewart reads this he will give us his opinion about the differences in the passages ?

Tue 24 May, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject: re: Gaining Force

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've worked out where it comes from with a bit of help from Ed. It's from John Collin's book "Perpertual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved". Here it is (page 89):

The inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement. Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs or other hanging weights which require winding up or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, on the contrary these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetual motion itself; as from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to placed together, so arranged that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wondrous speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move.

This is a translation from "Das Triumphans...". I'm not sure who did this translation, but there is a different translation in John's more recent book of "Das Triumphans...". Here it is (page 190):

The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely ? that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity ? without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation ? such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other ?automatics? ? e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my ?principle of excess weight?, is NOT just an external appendage, an ?added-on device? which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cards or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ?essential constituent parts? which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely ? so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ?point of rest?, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

Please remember these quotes are from John Collins' books and are copyrighted by him.

I'll work on my own translation of this section of DT when I get some spare time. Stewart

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Jim.....

Bessler does not use two words "swing, or movement." He uses one single German word that can be translated as either swinging or more loosely as moving. Some members in the past complained that swinging may not be a correct translation, probably because it would exclude their pet theory. So we now use swinging/moving as the interpretation. It's up to each individual to decide what Bessler specifically meant. I now always use swinging/moving even though I think very strongly that Bessler meant swinging.

That would have been me.....and it was not because of a pet theory and you know that......in the name of real science and interpretation I would appreciate it if you would set the record straight on this....I'm not the one with a "pet theory"....you are.


Steve

[jim_mich]

Steve, so you're saying that it was you that questioned the translation almost two years ago? I didn't have any one person in mind when I mentioned pet theory, but going back over the postings I see it was Bill that objected to "swinging"

Graham, again we have a translation/interpretation being taken perhaps a little too literally. I remember John and I discussing this some time ago and I'm sure we agreed that, "certain disposed weights gain force from their own motion" was a better interpretation.

It was even before this that "motion" was considered over tha word "swinging". Every time I quoted Bessler as saying "swinging" I was promptly informed that I was wrong and that it should be "moving". So now I always say swing/move or swinging/moving. To me they are just different shades of the same meaning. Also it seems to me that if anyone insists on using one over the other then it is because they have a pet theory. Even though I admit to having a pet theory I still use the dual phrase swing/move.

[bluesgtr44]

My apologies, Jim....I knew I had mentioned this to you on more than one occasion recently and made an assumption. My apologies to you too, Bill for taking credit for something I didn't do......;-)


Steve

[DrWhat]

When you/we make corrections/clarifications, can we make sure the Wiki pages are changed too, and any other electronic references that can easily be changed.

I don't wish to rehash old discussions and old corrections. I'm sure you guys would get bored repeating the same things year after year to any newcomers.

[docfeelsgood]

Fletcher;
"once a small impressed force causes it to commence running" or something to that effect from JC . doesn't that refer to the dreaded "IMPACT" that i have mentioned before ???????????

Doc.

[DrWhat]

doc: impressed force as in the two fingers that impress the force to get the wheel started. Or so I believe.

[Jon J Hutton]

I know it is not my conversation but thought I would add this.

""the pressure of two fingers" ... "pressure was applied until the moment when a single one of the weights present inside the body of the device began to fall. The machine then gradually began, of its own accord, to revolve faster and faster." - pg 249 Thank you John Collins

and also,

"then set it in motion - it is essentially a roughly 6 ell diameter wheel, about a foot in width. He did this with little difficulty, moving it by hand until a single weight inside it was heard to begin falling; it then began to rotate of its own accord with such a force that within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times, and could only be stopped by applying great effort." - pg 247 Thank you John Collins

[fredos]

what i feel very strange in bessler wheel is the fact that the wheel got its maximum speed after only 2 or 3 rotations. After these 2 or 3 rotations, the wheel didn't accelerate at all.
if a constant torque was applied on one side of a wheel ,the wheel would continued to accelerate until an infinite value.

The initial push needed makes me think that the wheel was balanced at rest.

the initial push creates the overbalance by using centrifugal forces acting on the weights.
after some rotations, the centrifugal forces reached a maximum i.e the weights hit the inner border of the wheel and the maximum energy is limited by the radius of the wheel.

The best way to use this phenomenon , is ,IMO, to use a path that is radial on one side of the wheel.

[jim_mich]

Bessler said that his wheels “gain force from their swinging (or motion).� When a weight swings it has a natural frequency. If weights within the wheel were swinging then they would reach a certain frequency and then hold that frequency. Even weights that are only moving (not swinging) will have a natural speed relative to the force that makes them move.


What sound does a weight make while it is falling? Or is it an implied understanding that the sound is that of a weight impacting?

[KAS]

Jim,

Bessler's statement - "Gains force from its own swinging" holds some ground in physics.

I know you are an advocate of the power of CF and how it can be used in a perpetual set up.

I one saw a demonstration by Professor Julius Sumner Miller where he used CF to lift a 10 gram weight with a 1 gram weight.

I managed to find it again -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iODccWH8AgU

I wonder if this could be used in the way he demonstrates?

Kas

[jim_mich]

Many times we will be told that centrifugal force is a fictitious force. Pay close attention to what Professor Julius Sumner Miller says:

Now we must never say that there is a force radially outward on this thing pulling on the string.

Oh, wait a minute! I said something wrong. And I’m glad I did because it may lead some of you to catch me up on it. I said, “There is a force radially outward on this thing pulling on the string.� Yes, yes, yes. [color]There is a force which the string exerts on the body. And there is a force which the body exerts on the string. But there is no force radially outward on the body.[/color]

So you see ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, in the heat of the argument I could very well make an utterance, which the good people will quickly detect. And I’m glad I detected it so you will see there are occasions when I say things that are not right.

There is no force radially outward on the body. Of course not! Anyone that understands CF also understands that it is the movement of the body that produces the force. There is no force on the body. The body produces inertial force when it is forced to constantly change direction, thus moving in a circle.