Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Roxaway59]

Just in case it helps clarify things I have made things on the picture a bit easier to see. I have indicated the direction of rotation on the right hand mechanism as being the same as the wheel (clockwise) but it might be better if they went anticlockwise.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Hi agor95, could you restate that indicating the colours of the weights you are refering to?

Graham

[Roxaway59]

The centripetal force on the yellow weights would be provided by the tension springs.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

There is something else that has been bothering me just lately and I feel I need to get it off my chest.

On this forum there is much talk about Newtonian forces and so on and despite not being well versed in these above say layman type status I do and always have thought that this knowledge that has been around now for a very long time is important.

Sometimes I am guilty of ignoring this knowledge and I witness other people ignoring it to the point where very large and expensive duck eggs are built. I try to keep my duck eggs small.

Think about this though.

Who here on the forum thinks that if they were stood in front of Besslers wheel and the canvas was removed and they watched the wheel in all its glory that they would not understand what it was doing and how it was doing it?

If there is anyone then please tell me because I would like to know.

I don’t recall anyone ever saying that maybe Besslers special principal might be too difficult for some of us here to grasp. I believe the phrase was “simple but hidden” or similar.

My point is this.

Any machine that can be understood by someone, even if that person is not well versed in Newtonian physics can be imagined by that same person who put his mind to it.

Expanding on that I would say that anyone who is willing to put in hard labour actually building mechanisms and experimenting in a progressive organised way is far more likely to find the answer than someone who has read a lot of physics books.

Personally, should I be concerned that lots of people going back more than three hundred years have tried and failed to get the answer?

Should I also be worried that a lot of those people had far better credentials than me?

I would suggest that any such thinking serves no purpose other than to make a person feel more negative about what he is trying to do.

So I say again and not for the first time.

Non of us are Bessler, non of us think entirely correctly and certainly non of us have the answer at this present moment in time but if we work together as a collective, even if its an imperfect collective we can do it.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Hi Agor .. the delivery of the math will be child-like simple, to point to where I suggest the chink in the armour of Newton's Laws lies - imo his Laws are not wrong per se, just that B. found an arrangement of mechanics that they have difficulty explaining in their current form - to do the full math workup is beyond my paygrade and interest, and if true, others more qualified can tackle that ..

............

Graham .. I agree that working together has the best chance of success - many have tried it going alone, with zero success - as you say even B. had his brother as an assistant and someone to share thoughts and ideas with - fwiw, up until very recently here sims were poo-pooed and vilified by some, now they are more accepted as a useful tool in the search allowing rapid development and testing of ideas and concepts - but not everybody uses them or understands them - I wouldn't be without them ..

A couple of thoughts regarding your above post ..

Newton's Laws were a large part of the foundation for the Conservation Laws for physical systems ( Classical Mechanics falls inside these ) - Emmy Noether ( a mathematician ) in the early 20th century introduced 2 Theorem's known as Noether's Theorems - basically paraphrased they add in the later Laws of Thermodynamics which are also based on conservations - she showed that all the conservation Laws have an intertwining symmetry with each other, which is a reasonable and natural deductive process supported by her math ..

Which brings me to the point that many still think that gravity is 'energy' because B's. wheels could do Work and maintain their RPM - Newton's Laws say gravity is a force of mass x acceleration .. therefore we who believe in B. and that his 'runners' were bona-fide gravity enabled wheels also have the responsibility to explain where that energy ( capacity to do Work ) comes into the wheel system to allow it to do external Work and maintain RPM etc .. my contention is that if Noether's Theorem holds of symmetry between Conservation Laws of physical systems then the required surplus energy must flow into the revolving wheel system to be outputted again after some transformation - since his wheels were firmly anchored to the earths surface then it appears that one option is that momentum is transferred from the earth system to the wheel to output as Work ( f x d ) and maintain Conservation Laws ..

My approach is to try to keep it simple - B's. wheels were simple to build, and easy to understand - imo we could all understand their principle of operation if we could see inside - but I never waste time thinking about the later two-way wheels, and only focus on the one-way wheels mechanical operation ..

To wit .. they were tied-off when stationary, and then untied and released for a demonstration - this meant they had torque at any position and were ready to go from any position - what I deduce is that somehow they were arranged into this position of surplus torque, and after release the internal mechs reset themselves to provide additional reoccurring/replenishing surplus torque i.e. they were chronically and consistently net-unbalanced devices that could maintain that imbalance once in rotation .. we know all our wheels fail at this and fade to a stop ..

What we don't know is how they first got into that position - my best guess is that B. gave the wheel a hand shove to jerk things into position and latch etc, for the very first time operation - thereafter, some prime mover mech working in tandem with the out-of-balancing weights sets acted to replenish the imbalance weights positionally without itself diminishing to any great extent the wheels momentum gains and rotational energy .. i.e. the to-and-fro trading 2 part feedback system ..

[Roxaway59]

You know Fletcher if it turned out in the end that the energy came from say the earths angular kinetic energy I for one wouldn’t be too surprised.

I guess under those circumstances his wheel would always have to be orientated the same way.

Here is a thought experiment.

I’m in charge of the earth (this is a bad idea).

I first of all issue everyone with space suits then remove all the atmosphere.

I erect an enormous ring around the earth supported at the poles by bearings so that it is no more than 12 feet off the ground.

I then connect another ring at right angles to that.

I bolt a twelve foot wheel to the earth and place it under this ring so that the top of the 12 foot wheel is always in contact with the ring.

So there I am my name is Bessler and I am stood next to my wheel demonstrating it but this time my audience is wearing space suits and I am hoping that no one has noticed the bloody great ring. Better still I paint it blue (I forgot about the atmosphere….black).

So far this is going well and my wheel should turn nicely what do you think?

So the question would be is it actually possible to make a mechanism that can actually be sensitive to the Earth’s rotation? I know that pendulums can indicate that the Earth is moving.

Graham

[SHADOW]

Il me semble que la roue unidirectionelle était atachée à un seul endroit de la jante! cela a peut être son importance.
Je pense que la recherche sur le principe de la roue unidirectionelle prime sur la seconde.
Fletcher, oubliez mon idée saugrenue de braillet à trois poids! ca ne marche pas comme l'idée m'a été inspirée!
Graham, bon point concernant l'orientation de la roue!

It seems to me that the one-way wheel was dropped in one place of the rim! This may be important.
I think that research on the principle of the one-way wheel takes precedence over the second.
Fletcher, forget my crazy idea of three-pound braillet! It doesn’t work like the idea was inspired to me!
Graham, good point about the wheel orientation!

[Fletcher]

You know Fletcher if it turned out in the end that the energy came from say the earths angular kinetic energy I for one wouldn’t be too surprised.

I guess under those circumstances his wheel would always have to be orientated the same way.

I think it could be orientated in any direction Graham,as long as it was firmly attached to earth .. if it were a 'precession-type drive' wheel ( I don't ) the only problem would be on the equator iinm - latitude effects things - watch the 5 minute video .. fwiw the earth rotates and wobbles thru the seasons etc - the wobble effecting the Foucault pendulum is not covered in the video and it just deals with proving the earth is a sphere ( and not flat lol ) ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JxyT0edT6c

In view of Orffyreus’ reputation (whether merited or otherwise) it is natural to begin by supposing that the machine was a pure fraud. The arguments in favour of this view are summed up in a letter from de Crousaz to ’s Gravesande.

(Extract) February 3, 1729.

“. . . Firstly, Orffyreus is mad.

“Secondly, it is impossible that a madman can have discovered what such a number of clever persons have searched for without success.

“Thirdly, I do not believe in impossibilities.

“Fourthly, we can easily imagine that persons keep a secret from which they are to receive benefit; but this fellow, hoping only to gain reputation, allows this to be tarnished by an accusation which he has it in his power to disprove, if false.

“Fifthly, the servant who ran away from his house, for fear of being strangled, has in her possession, in writing, the terrible oath that Orffyreus made her swear.

“Sixthly, he only had to have asked, in order to have had this girl imprisoned, until he had time to finish his machine.

“Seventhly, they publish that the machine is going to be exhibited, when suddenly those who advertise it become silent.

“Eighthly, it is true that there is a machine at his house, to which they give the name of perpetual motion; but that cannot be transported, it is much smaller, and it differs from the first, in that it only turns one way”.

[Sam Peppiatt]

R.T. Gould also claimed, that any one who is trying to figure it out how it was done, is so stupid they should be drawing four sided tringles---------------Sam

[Fletcher]

It seems to me that the one-way wheel was dropped ( released ) in one place of the rim! This may be important.

Here's what B. had to say about the one-ways in JC's AP ( pgs 271 & 272 ) Shadow ..

Gera .. " On unfastening a bolt, the wheel immediately began to revolve." - bolt in this instance means lock as I read it ..

Draschwitz .. " The bolts which regulated the motion were screwed into and out of the axle by many people, for I allowed all my friends to operate it. " - these appear to have been to introduce friction ( and heat ) and put a load on the axle so its speed/RPM could be adjusted up and down - and I assume that if screwed in far enough would slow the wheel down and stop it if that was desired by the onlookers ( they would stop at any position ) - then backed off again to release it to turn again - the point being that it still had a considerable torque ( drive ) apparently at very slow speeds ( while also under heavy load from the friction bolt ), from presumably any starting position - and we know it also had abundant torque upon release, because these wheels had large accelerations up to working RPM in only one or two turns ..

JC's AP pg 245 B. said .. " In its interior it gains - for how else does it grow out of balance? Note - its exterior is free of weights. "

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Flecher,
je faisais cette remarque car sur la gravure on voit un cadenas sur un anneau d'arrimage, mais vu vos précisions je comprend mieux.

Hello Flecher,
I made this remark because on the engraving we see a padlock on a tie-down ring, but given your details I understand better.

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher wrote.

My approach is to try to keep it simple - B's. wheels were simple to build, and easy to understand - imo we could all understand their principle of operation if we could see inside - but I never waste time thinking about the later two-way wheels, and only focus on the one-way wheels mechanical operation ..

To wit .. they were tied-off when stationary, and then untied and released for a demonstration - this meant they had torque at any position and were ready to go from any position - what I deduce is that somehow they were arranged into this position of surplus torque, and after release the internal mechs reset themselves to provide additional reoccurring/replenishing surplus torque i.e. they were chronically and consistently net-unbalanced devices that could maintain that imbalance once in rotation .. we know all our wheels fail at this and fade to a stop ..

What we don't know is how they first got into that position - my best guess is that B. gave the wheel a hand shove to jerk things into position and latch etc, for the very first time operation - thereafter, some prime mover mech working in tandem with the out-of-balancing weights sets acted to replenish the imbalance weights positionally without itself diminishing to any great extent the wheels momentum gains and rotational energy .. i.e. the to-and-fro trading 2 part feedback system ..

You know I have to admit to being slightly embarrassed about this because I feel that I have ended up losing my focus to a large degree so I am going to reset myself and begin again with a new perspective and outlook.

Besslers wheel could not have worked off anything other than gravity when you take his first wheels at face value.

There is nothing other than gravity that came into play and it doesn’t matter how you slice it. Its no good saying that gravity is not a force or that gravity is not energy these are just words.

They are important words and when they are spoken in the language of physics to describe the anomaly that is Besslers wheel you end up going down a dead end because Bessler in effect proved that gravity is not a conservative force and that is at odds with the known laws.

There may be another explanation that still falls within the known laws as to how gravity is able to do this but for now I think we just have to except that somehow it can. It is the only logical conclusion when you think seriously about his one way wheels and what they did.

Now as a layman it is, and will remain, a lot easier for me to say this than some of you here.

For some of you, saying this about gravity is a real slap in the face but given the fact that you are on the hunt for Santa Clauses reindeer droppings like the rest of us that slap is bearable. For others that think Bessler was a fraud it is proper kick in the crown jewels.

The problem with me is that I have spent far too long concentrating on his later wheels. Its only the last section of posts on the thread that has made me stop and think about that.

There was a certain comfort in trying to make a wheel that you gave energy to initially before it ran.

The first wheels though are the key to this.

They are an in your face anomaly that’s just as crazy as having your pet cat suddenly turn round one day and talk to you. Mine does talk to me sometimes so maybe that’s a bad example but anyway you know what I mean.

The point I want to make about this though is that our job just got a lot easier.

My background is in music and electronics.

Everyone who has ever got involved in fault finding knows that the easiest faults to find are the ones that are definite faults. Some faults are intermittent and sometimes it can be difficult to work out if a device really does have a fault especially if it only does something odd once in a blue moon.

The ones that have something definite about them though are a lot easier to find. They practically tell you where the fault is.

Bessler’s wheel is a kind of fault because it shouldn’t be. Its an enigma that is taunting physics.

What it is doing is so blatant that it narrows its own options down as to how it must be doing it. This is a good thing and its one that we can take full advantage of MARK MY WORDS.

The best way to go about this in my opinion is to treat it like a progressive block diagram.

Start with the very basics of what his wheel did and put more and more detail into fine tuning things as we go.

We can start by discussing in detail each of the progressive blocks until a finer picture of what his wheel was emerges.

I’m going to be spending some time on this from now on. Obviously I hope that people will join me.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Before I get into taking a more basic approach I want to post this latest attempt in Algodoo of the slope idea I posted earlier on.

It is self starting but takes a long time to build up speed.

It took me a long time getting the slopes how I wanted and even Algodoo didn't want to go over unity which is saying something.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

One thing to note is that the accuracy is set at 4800.

Reduce it to 1200 and it doesn't work.

Reduce it to 480 and it does.

I have noticed this kind of thing many times before in Algodoo.

Graham

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Gaham,
J'ai bricolé votre dernière Sim, à voir si on peut en tirer quelque chose?!

Hello Gaham,
I tinkered with your last Sim, see if we can get anything out of it?!