"Energy cannot be created or destroyed..."

[ovyyus]

First learn how to make weights gain energy from their own swinging.

A specific shaped weight can gain energy from its own swinging if it were allowed to swing in a breeze. Bessler's cryptic statement can obviously be applied to simple and known physical observations without having to resort to exotic and unproven notions (dare I say improbable) which involve centripetal/inertial forces somehow creating energy from nothing.

[jim_mich]

Bill, you have full rights to your thoughts and opinions. The formula for CF has been known since Newton's time. It is not exotic or unproven. It is CF = K x W x R x N^2 where K is a constant determined by the units being used, W is the weight, R is the radius, and N is the number of rotations per unit of time. Yes, my "notions" are physically unproven at this time, but I would not call them exotic or improbable. The energy does not come from nothing. It comes from the same place that the extra energy in a faster moving object comes from.

From Wikipedia Kinetic energy entry.

Note that the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. This means, for example, that if you are traveling twice as fast, you will have four times as much kinetic energy. As a result of this, a car traveling twice as fast requires four times as much distance to stop.

A weight will double its speed when it falls for twice as long, but it will have four times the kinetic energy and four times the CF if it travels in an arc. Under normal condition the build up in KE matches the draw down in KE and conservation of energy prevails. But this is not true in all situations.

I could explain right here and now how such a wheel can in theory work. But I'd rather wait until I finish building and testing such a wheel. Unfortunately I'm getting old and I'm in constant pain. I'm limited to how much I can do each day. Working on my wheel is not at the top of my list.

[ovyyus]

Jim, I'm fully aware of the formula for CF. I never said CF was exotic or unproven. I did say your notion that free energy can be extracted from inertial forces is exotic and improbable. Of course, if you could prove otherwise then that would be an awesome feat. While I certainly think you are mistaken, I do wish you every success.

On the matter of Bessler's quote about weights gaining force from their own swinging (or motion), isn't it true that this could have any number of possible meanings? I outlined one possibility above and there are other known physical observations where a mass in relative motion can gain force (aerodynamic lift also comes to mind) without resorting to any new unproven theories.

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory...

[rlortie]

Bill,

I could not agree with you more!

I cannot see inertial forces especially those created by centrifugal force. Whether real or imaginary they always seem to end up pulling at the axis.

I am a firm believer in Occam's razor and use it as an empirical approach to making or deducing a design without ever thinking of Occam. I learned of his principle many years ago and now look upon it as an everyday occurence.

"Weights Gaining force from their own swinging or (motion)" to me does have another meaning! It is not the weights that are gaining force, but the containment they are attached to.

Where he states that his machine will barely run with one cross beam, and then remarks that weights work in pairs, leads me to a "Bifilar pendulum.

I think of a child in an "A" frame swing, he keeps pumping and if the frame is not firmly attached to the ground, a point will come when he literally lifts the back legs off the ground from his forward movement.

A bifilar pendulum is where the child sits staddle the swing seat and pumps in a motion inline with the supporting chains, also referred to as endow swinging. Now the majority of the force is applied to one chain at a time, that being the trailing length as it is farther OOB than the leading chain. Yet the swing seat always stays horizontal (cross beam) but changes in elevation.

A mass can gain force by a simple repetitive timed pulse. Everything including a beer can has a resonance point, once achieved and the pulse is kept consistent the mass will eventually destroy itself. Tesla proved this and almost brought down the building his lab was in.

IMO this is a prime example of "swinging weights gaining force. After all Bessler does not specify where the gained force is transferred although he uses the term transference vividly and often.

I do not believe that swinging weights will gain force within themselves without an outside assistance or pulse.

Jim has referred to pairs a lot in his postings and research. I felt that he was on the right track. I looked forward for the next installment of his build. I was somewhat let down and disappointed when he posted his spoked configuration. It reminded me of Preston Stroud's first attempt using dead blow hammers.

With a closing thought, the weights that were shown to the eye witnesses IMO were not the prime moving weights, but were rollers moving across warped boards to set the actual weights into motion. (Occum's Razor). There alleged weight of four pounds would be enough to hold down the bounce or recoil as they came off the so called warped boards which I am biased to believe were on a very shallow incline.

As for Jims health problem, I can relate! my mother and oldest sister suffered from fibro--. it is not a fun thing to be around less be inflicted with it. I tend to believe that it is a genetic thing.

Ralph

[Bessler007]

When Bessler is put in the balance the simple evidence seen is that he was a fraud. His claim was to have done something that is in violation of the known laws of physics. These laws have been examined and proven countless times.

I don't really think Bessler was a fraud. I sincerely think there is a flaw in the scientific understanding. It is anyone's guess what the flaw is. It isn't sensible to carve up one idea with a scientific razor while imagining your explanation is safe from that same razor.

☯

[rlortie]

Bessler007

It isn't sensible to carve up one idea with a scientific razor while imagining your explanation is safe from that same razor.

You are absolutely right, but misunderstand the concept. Occam's razor does not inhibit ones thoughts to what is said to exist or be law. In fact when scrutinizing a design, one of the first things you omit is that which is said to be set in stone.

Sir Isaac Newton was smart enough to cover his butt on this one. He did not specifically state in his laws of relative motion that a perpetual or gravity machine was totaly impossible. If his health and age would have been such, that he could have physically responded to s'Gravenside's letter, we would probably be living in a different world by now!

If the popular and admired Newton were to have looked at Bessler's machine and agreed that he could find no fraud, his word would have been enough for Bessler to have buyers clammering at his door.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Jim has referred to pairs a lot in his postings and research. I felt that he was on the right track. I looked forward for the next installment of his build. I was somewhat let down and disappointed when he posted his spoked configuration. It reminded me of Preston Stroud's first attempt using dead blow hammers.

Ralph, sorry for the let down. The spokes are just for reinforcement. The wheel is 6-1/2 foot diameter double layers of 3/16 thick Masonite hardboard cut from four sheets. If I had used MDF alone (as you recommended) then the weight and cost would have been rather high. By using thinner sheets and using spokes for reinforcing at the stress points I was able to reduce both the weight and the costs while maintaining structural strength.

With a closing thought, the weights that were shown to the eye witnesses IMO were not the prime moving weights, but were rollers moving across warped boards to set the actual weights into motion. (Occum's Razor). There alleged weight of four pounds would be enough to hold down the bounce or recoil as they came off the so called warped boards which I am biased to believe were on a very shallow incline.

IMO the warped board comment may have meant nothing. They may have been just part of the internal structure or maybe a curved leaf spring or just imagination. The only working role for a warped board would be for a weight to roll on it. A rolling weight has a unique sound. If there were any rolling weights then it would seem that someone would have heard them rolling and commented on it. Instead there were reports of thumping noises. This is why I reject a rolling weight concept.


Can anyone tell me the source for the idea of primary and secondary weights that is mentioned from time to time? The only thing I can find is the "pair of pairs" statement, which would seem to indicate two pairs. By inference they might be a primary pair and secondary pair.

[Fletcher]

IINM Jim, that sounds like a reference to the OOB system as separate from the Prime Mover, mentioned numerously in John Collins MT publication & as read in the wiki translations of Bill's MT's.

All excellent reference material BTW.

[bluesgtr44]

...Just want to pop this in, I have tried to find a definite interpretation for the "swinging" notion that gets mentioned a lot. I have tried both the german and latin versions and there is no "swinging" unless it is a really loose interpretation.

The interpretation that mentions swinging is not from J. Collins book...I believe he used the word force...not real sure on that. I have no problem with the approach of "swinging weights"...now, it just might be me but, I want to be as factual to the people on this board as possible and not lead anyone...especially if there is a debate on this interpretation.

It is not misleading in the fact that it could be possible...but, if it is not...it could lead some to believe that the weights are swinging and that would have to be dealt with....basically, this could be misleading the research.

Utmost respect for your approach, Jim....I just cannot validate "swinging" as a direct interpretation...and I have tried!


Steve

[rlortie]

Steve,

I am considering that the term "swinging" may in some how be the swinging out of the connected weights starting with MT #9. This is where he first makes note of something there, but only after showing the connectedness.

This IMO makes better sense than weights just simply swinging on a disk without moving the pivot point of that which is swinging.

This is one design where CF can be used to an advantage where it is not pulling on the axis. But I stand behind my previous statement that the connectivity has to change or shift the pivot point. This can be accomplished with his term "cross bar", making sense of the term; in pairs moving in and out.

Ralph

[Bessler007]

The clues Bessler gives in his writings can guide a crank in their investigation. That is one avenue.

Another course would be to examine what witnesses to Bessler's wheel had to say. One witness, Johann Christian Wolff, specifically said, "During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards." We know the weights moved around within the wheel. I think we also know the weights weren't freely rolling. Bessler mentions 'interconnectedness'. That interconnectedness indicates the weights were swinging to some extent.

The best guidance for anyone in an investigation of Bessler’s wheel would be to understand the forces by learning some elementary physics and by experimenting. I think those are Jim’s primary approaches. Those methods are hard to disagree with.


☯

[LustInBlack]

Agreed.

Personally, I like the brute force approach.

[bluesgtr44]

Ralph, I agree with your input as a viable option...I agree with Jims also. Leave no stone unturned! I have all five publications, I know the part that has been interpretted and I believe I put them both together on "Steves street..." so anyone could see the vast difference in these interpretations. I went to the section in my book, and could not verify the word "swinging" in either the German or Latin versions...I could see where there might be an interpretation of it, but it is not a definite. I just enjoy this sight for it's veracity and tenacity...and holding as close to the truth as we can.

Another course would be to examine what witnesses to Bessler's wheel had to say. One witness, Johann Christian Wolff, specifically said, "During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards."

The mention of weights banging only came about with the bi-directional wheels, his first two one directional wheels had no witness claims of "banging/tapping/knocking".

The best guidance for anyone in an investigation of Bessler’s wheel would be to understand the forces by learning some elementary physics and by experimenting. I think those are Jim’s primary approaches. Those methods are hard to disagree with.

I couldn't carry Jims jock strap in physics....and he has one of the more interesting approaches at this time, IMO.


Steve

[jim_mich]

Utmost respect for your approach, Jim....I just cannot validate "swinging" as a direct interpretation...and I have tried!

It was now over six years since Orffyreus had first shown his invention to the public. After numerous tests, several moves to new towns, slanderous attacks on his name, the frequent rebuilding of new wheels, the excitement of being given his first real job at Kassel; all this, and yet he was no nearer to a successful sale than he had been in Gera, all those years ago. Orffyreus felt depressed at the way time was passing with no improvement in his fortunes, apart from his success at being called to Kassel, but he had now been a guest of the Landgrave's for over two and a half years. Something further had to be done, and the only possibility was more advertising, he needed something to give impetus to the sale of his machine, and so, in October, 1719, another year later, he published his grandest work. The book, The Triumphant Orffyrean Perpetual Motion Machine, was written in both German and Latin, in order to reach as wide an audience as possible. The Latin text would impart a kind of intellectual authenticity to the publication. As a marketing exercise, the book was an outright success. Copies of it travelled all over the world and some can still be found extant in libraries in England, France, Germany, the United States of America and Russia. As well as including

Copyright © 1997-2003 John Collins. All rights reserved. 89

copies of all the certificates given in regard to his invention, Orffyreus also added drawings and diagrams, not only of his latest wheel, but also of various applications that it might be utilised for. It is a long document and as full as ever of windy rhetoric, but it also includes his own description of the actual mechanism of the wheel, which although ostensibly giving nothing away, does provide pointers to the way his wheel worked. Orffyreus presented Karl with a special Christmas gift of the publication. The book contains an account of the history of the perpetual motion, and lists his opponents under four divisions; namely, the scientific world, persons in high authority, the public in general and the press. Which does not seem to leave anyone else, however he does reserve a special place for Karl whose excellent qualities he can not overpraise. He publicly thanks him for 'restoring to me a measure of all the honour and means I had lost in my native country'. He describes how he began to build a new wheel, making it larger than the others and explains that 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'.

Did the translation in red get changed when John Collin published Das Triumphirende?
------------------------

]This is one design where CF can be used to an advantage where it is not pulling on the axis. But I stand behind my previous statement that the connectivity has to change or shift the pivot point. This can be accomplished with his term "cross bar", making sense of the term; in pairs moving in and out.

Ralph

The best guidance for anyone in an investigation of Bessler’s wheel would be to understand the forces by learning some elementary physics and by experimenting. I think those are Jim’s primary approaches. Those methods are hard to disagree with.

Ralph, that is only your opinion. It is not a fact of physics. This is what gets under my skin, when opinion is presented as fact. I'm not saying that changing the pivot point is a wrong approach. But when you say that "the connectivity has to change or shift the pivot point" this has no basis in physics. For if it has to... then that implies that fixed pivot points cannot work. Is this what you are saying? Is this just an opinion or are you claiming it to be a fact of physics?

[bluesgtr44]

LOL...this is interesting. Not sure how many more interpretations could be out there....

Interpretation from Jim above.....


The internal structure of this drum (or wheel) consists of weights arranged according to several a priori, that is, scientifically demonstrable, laws of mechanical perpetual motion. After the wheel completes a single rotation, or after a single force is applied to the wheel, the motion drives the wheel unceasingly. As long as the wheel?s whole structure does not change, the wheel continues its revolutions without any further assistance from external motive power. Other automatic machines, such as clockwork, springs, and hoisting weights, necessarily require an external restoring force.

The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit. As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push. These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing.

This one is from "Steve's street..." Ralph cited it....
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... adb4#35648



'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 from my copy of DT, pg 190-191...J. Collins pub.




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 nnecessity 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 cords or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themsilves 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 proprtional 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.,

I had brought this up before...about the numerous interpretations. That is why I tried to interpret myself from both the German and Lating versions, I couldn't find "swinging". The German could be stretched to mean that....but, I saw nothing in the Latin version.


Steve