Landgraf Karl von Hessen-Kassel

[eccentrically1]

"It more than fulfils the requirements of an almost countless number of
learned prescriptions as to what any credible device laying claim
to Perpetual Motion status must perform. (page 30) Indeed, this
long-sought and much-desired machine, or so-called Perpetual
Motion. (T.N. - pure artificiale quoad durantem materiam is
added after P.M. – this Latin phrase is then described a few
lines later, marked *) is a revolving wheel, which is able to run,
by means of its own innate momentum, *…" DT 195 Karl


Since Karl was the only person to have allegedly looked inside besides Bessler, maybe his words if translated right provide a clue in DT.

If this is the correct translation, i don't see a clue?

[eccentrically1]

Eccentrcally1, it is curious (singular) that you deny a possibility, indeed quite improbable, and yet accept another one even more improbable.

It’s even more curious that you deny a possibility that has physical examples as proof, yet accept another one that has none.

[Fletcher]

"It more than fulfils the requirements of an almost countless number of
learned prescriptions as to what any credible device laying claim
to Perpetual Motion status must perform. (page 30) Indeed, this
long-sought and much-desired machine, or so-called Perpetual
Motion. (T.N. - pure artificiale quoad durantem materiam is
added after P.M. – this Latin phrase is then described a few
lines later, marked *) is a revolving wheel, which is able to run,
by means of its own innate momentum, *…" DT 195 Karl


Since Karl was the only person to have allegedly looked inside besides Bessler, maybe his words if translated right provide a clue in DT.

If this is the correct translation, i don't see a clue?

Thanks for finding that dax .. Karl says it has an innate momentum which enables it to run. That is a very specific detail (clue) and parallels what B said himself about excess impetus, and preponderance etc.

And as I alluded to earlier we have all fallen short of achieving such a state in our builds. We get temporary positive and negative torque conditions via various clever arrangements of swinging lws (lever-weights) etc that so far always prove torque symmetry so that there is no buildup of wheel momentum i.e. no innate momentum to make it continue running. Obviously we haven't hit upon the correct mechanical setup (yet) to cause an accumulation of momentum as described.

B said quite categorically that his wheels turned from imbalance. To have a buildup of wheel momentum the torque forces must be asymmetrical. To achieve that the wheel CoM must linger or have a prolonged placement to one side of the axle/fulcrum. This is a clue in itself. To have an extended time that the CoM remains on one side (n.b. it doesn't permanently remain to one side IMO, just long enough to give excess momentum from its torque) then the CoM coordinate must either be stationary for a period while the wheel rotates forward or moving slightly backwards (i.e. the coordinate moves even further across) relative to the wheel direction for a period. This hints at multiple lws in action at once and a coordinated "connectedness principle" to control these conditions, IMO.

FWIW I believe Karl saw a Gravity Only wheel with a full blown connectedness principle in operation that was easy to see and understand in action, hence his comments. I don't believe there was an environmental pressure developing force in play other than innate inertia.

ETA: if one wants to perhaps get a visual 'feel' for what I am suggesting then take a look at MT15 and disregard the weighted sliding cross-poles that purportedly show the superior weight as mentioned by B in MT15's commentary. There he shows a cross-wheel connectedness but not an in-series connectedness as seen in the 9;10,11,12;14;16; and 37;38. Perhaps you need both methods of connectedness acting simultaneously to be successful, and that tandem combination is the esoteric Prime Mover itself ?!

[unstable]

Fletcher, as always you say sensible things. Also I am of the idea that if there really is a solution, this lies in a particular type of connection between the moving parts of the wheel.

Eccentrically1: the physical evidence you speak of is certainly not of that order of magnitude. For me this theory is more absurd than that of succeeding, through particular weight connections, to be able to draw energy from gravity.
Different points of view :)

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
your observation and combination of the clues are absolutely right.

Exactly with this thoughts I tried to develop my gravity converter, which you all disagreed.

I was very close with my device for the self accelerating wheel. But all said no it will not work this way.
So i destroyed my wheel as Bessler did.
Only the outer hamster cage with dowels remained.

As already communicated my 2m wheel is in Bad Karlshafen and hopefully I will get it back next month.

I will rebuild the internal mechanism as before with only a little change.
From some observers "the cylindrical weights are pierced in the middle" .


Yes, this is that what I needed, to get the advantage.
When you put a rope thru this hole, then you can pull a wedge behind it.
This is the temporary blocking mechanism for the rolling cylinder.
The cylinder can only roll in one direction. It represent the ratchet function.

If you look only at one move of the cylinder you will fail.
You need to sum up all momentums of the 8 rolling cylinders.

Mt15 is an good example, to show shortening and extending the lever arm.

[ovyyus]

If Bessler's largest wheel developed a maximum internal power of 50 Watts, which possibility is more improbable?

[unstable]

Both are unlikely, but I assure you that draw 50 watts (continuous) from the surrounding environment (in a closed room), even with current technology would not be possible (solar apart ... but here we talk about something else) .. It even becomes a joke if we imagine it with the technology of 300 years ago. This theory is more unlikely for me.
It makes no sense to compare the energy required to run a clock with that required for that wheel, also considering the friction of the clock mechanisms of 300 years ago (It is very likely that in the clock of James Cox rubies were used to reduce the frictions)
Besides, B. would have written all those texts, so ... without any foundation of truth? He should have been crazy.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Ovyyus,
if you know the principle then of course you can have more than 50 Watt.

But Besslers biggest wheel was limited to the rotation speed. If it is running to fast then centrifugal forces will take place.
When we have 8 Impulses/impacts per turn on the falling side you can calculate the frequence of the internal swinging.

If you have a weight of 4 pounds and you shift it periodically by about 12 cm then you can calculate the torque.

But we have internally 8 of this weights. The rest I will leave to the physic experts which can calculate torque, Rotation speed, Energy etc.

They will end up in the range of 75-85 Watt depending on the load of the wheel.
It is not much in comparison what we consume daily.

But with the latest Information I got,
Bessler already has constructed a fast runner wheel.
This will allow a higher internal swinging frequence and will end up in more power.

[Fletcher]

FWIW, my thoughts about power and rpm, and the "sweet spot".

.. design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without 'turning a hair'.

I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold." - AP pg 355

The wheel does not have to be finely machined i.e. with tolerances in microns and weights to ounces. There is nothing critical about the exact position of the weights. The wheel will turn with a quite a lot of forgiveness for these variables.

This suggests to me that there is an operational 'sweet spot' within which the wheel will continue producing positive torque and innate turning. And that this sweet spot, altho not large, can be 'tuned' for various desired outputs of power and rpm parameters by adjustment of internal parts and relationships etc.

All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of 'excess weight') that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them." - AP pg 366

They sought to bring a wheel into a state of motion, such that, without the need for winding, its innate virtue would keep it revolving as long as its materials might last." - AP pg 366

.. by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it." - AP pg 367

In MT Bessler seems to give us some conditions to heed.

Firstly, nothing can be accomplished (non-negotiable) without his "Connectedness Principle". He tells us that early in MT9 where he introduces in-series connectedness. He even mentions Leupold doesn't use them. Later he introduces cross-wheel connectedness in various guises. I suggest we need both to create the "lingering CoM sweet spot".

In MT10 B tells us that we must have the correct handle-contruction. And in later MT's he signals Storks Bills (SB) and says there is something special about them. I suggest that the SB's and correct handle-construction flags are related to one and the same apparatus. i.e. converting a circular action into a linear action like a Peaucellier linkage does. IOW's change a torque to a force.

Lastly, the Prime Mover as mentioned in MT15. IMO this is not a single mechanical device that does something physically extraordinary. But is the combination of the dual connectedness principles and the SB's/correct handle design to create an OOB sweet spot.

Therefore there is no single mechanical principle or device that will miraculously break the Law of Levers, or lifts more than falls when all said and done etc. But there is a combination of mechanical principles, driven by falling connected weights themselves, that does produce a positive albeit temporary torque surplus and permanent innate wheel momentum buildup.

Cue the song "I did it my way" for most of us.

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

Therefore there is no single mechanical principle or device that will miraculously break the Law of Levers, or lifts more than falls when all said and done etc. But there is a combination of mechanical principles, driven by falling connected weights themselves, that does produce a positive albeit temporary torque surplus and permanent innate wheel momentum buildup.

I agree with this but not with the word used "connected".
Connected in my opinion has a meaning of a rigid connection.
But the connection which Bessler used is a loose connection.
reason: Because some observers are hearing a scratching noise

Rolling cylinders in a specific frame can produce torque,
but they must not be regrid connected,
they can freely run in the frames.
The frames allow a specific movement and can be seen as a border for the movement.

[Fletcher]

I agree with this but not with the word used "connected". Connected in my opinion has a meaning of a rigid connection. But the connection which Bessler used is a loose connection.

reason: Because some observers are hearing a scratching noise

Rolling cylinders in a specific frame can produce torque, but they must not be rigid connected, they can freely run in the frames. The frames allow a specific movement and can be seen as a border for the movement.

Morning Georg .. your opinion is of course as valid as any one elses until such time as a working wheel appears to prove otherwise. Then I suspect that many of us would reflect on when, why and how we waded into such deep waters. Not entirely surprising with so much information available today thanks to JC, Bill, and others, and factoring human nature. But in many ways that shear volume is the problem; there is too much information, especially from Bessler himself with his plethora of metaphors mixed with commentary from various sources etc. For me it has sometimes been incredibly hard to apply a filter to that tsunami and make any cohesive sense of it all. But we try our best nonetheless. I do get the feeling that many of us in our search cast our net far from the shore believing that the deeper water has more fish. I happen to think that the shallows may be not only closer but be more plentiful, to continue with metaphor.

That's why I give priority to MT which was unpublished, and to the various reliable witness statements. And at this point I thank dax again for posting up Karls comment about innate momentum (from DT) being the cause which AFAIK isn't grouped with any other witness statements such as the various letters etc. http://www.orffyre.com/quotes.html That gives a good intro to your points.

You mention a scratching noise heard in some wheels. Wolff saw inside a wheel and wrote about it. He said ..

"I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these through a slit."

I concede no mention there of ropes and/or pulleys that would be required for a regimented connectedness as I have suggested. But my point is that there were arms (lever-weights) out near the periphery, probably pivoted. These contained weights from Wolff's observations. So IMO we might conclude that multiple moveable weighted arms out near the rim were required in B's solution (and B does mentioned his connectedness principle at MT9 where we have the start of many lw examples). This doesn't quite align with your views on rolling cylinders with limited degrees of freedom. That doesn't mean you are wrong but just points out that it is apparently different from what was observed by a reliable witness. BTW something that used to bother me in the early days. Descriptions of one wheel were that it was in part 15 inches thick and 18 inches. Unfortunately there was no description of what is discrepancy meant. However if I was to build a wheel with lws that were attached near the rim and I later wanted to hide them I would build a cover section by extending the radius and putting a rim on it. I would have to attach the support for this to something. Rather than build an entire new wheel I would just add to the previous which would give me a new outer thickness.

Anyways, I digress ..

I think that most of us who have studied MT realize that many drawings are missing critical parts and information. We look at them and inherently know that they can't work, because we see an element is missing to some required or impossible work. This is reinforced by science's current thinking on conservative gravity and the doctrine that the path taken to raise or lower mass has no bearing on the energy outcomes - the math reinforces this.

So I challenge you/us to look for what is missing in some of the MT's. To change our perspective to perhaps something less ambitious.

Example .. take a look at MT9 (a simple drawing) and not ponder why it won't work (it won't), but ponder how could the lws have the fanned look shown ?

I'll start you off and tell you that the lws cannot be lifted up and outward near the top as drawn with that type of series weight to weight rope connectedness. They require a different mechanical intervention to autonomously configure like that.

Doesn't it make sense that a purported learning document for a future school of mechanics build forward from foundations as text books do ? (rhetorical).

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,

i will prepare a translation of my patent

http://www.kuenstler-energie.de/index.php?id=23

so that you have it in english. The patent is free for everyone. That was my aim.

To the thickness you mentioned, of course their are 2 different thicknesses, because one Wheel is running in the other.
The outer Wheel has 18 cm and the inner Wheel has 15 cm.

You can also see the frames for the rolling cylinders.
One cylinder is going to the rim, one is going to the axle. All weights are lifted simultaneously with an Impact on the falling side.

Do we have here a connectedness or not ?
In my opinion the cylinder carrier coordinate the swinging, they are connected but not with ropes, they are connected in a way that they can freely move. with the cylinder carrier.

[unstable]

Hi, I agree with what Fletcher wrote. I also agree that the connection may not be permanent (as Georg wrote). In a particular mechanism, even a rope, if properly sized, could connect two or more parts intermittently, that is, based on the position of the moving levers and weights. In the past I too often thought of a type of connection present only for a certain number of degrees of rotation of the wheel. It would seem one of the possible tricks to get a certain effect of imbalance and, once the cycle is complete, disconnect the parts to get the reset without the opposite effect. Maybe complicated and strange but, if possible, it would certainly be advantageous.

[Oystein]

FWIW, my thoughts about power and rpm, and the "sweet spot".

.. design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without 'turning a hair'.

I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold." - AP pg 355

The wheel does not have to be finely machined i.e. with tolerances in microns and weights to ounces. There is nothing critical about the exact position of the weights. The wheel will turn with a quite a lot of forgiveness for these variables.

This suggests to me that there is an operational 'sweet spot' within which the wheel will continue producing positive torque and innate turning. And that this sweet spot, altho not large, can be 'tuned' for various desired outputs of power and rpm parameters by adjustment of internal parts and relationships etc.

All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of 'excess weight') that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them." - AP pg 366

They sought to bring a wheel into a state of motion, such that, without the need for winding, its innate virtue would keep it revolving as long as its materials might last." - AP pg 366

.. by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it." - AP pg 367

In MT Bessler seems to give us some conditions to heed.

Firstly, nothing can be accomplished (non-negotiable) without his "Connectedness Principle". He tells us that early in MT9 where he introduces in-series connectedness. He even mentions Leupold doesn't use them. Later he introduces cross-wheel connectedness in various guises. I suggest we need both to create the "lingering CoM sweet spot".

In MT10 B tells us that we must have the correct handle-contruction. And in later MT's he signals Storks Bills (SB) and says there is something special about them. I suggest that the SB's and correct handle-construction flags are related to one and the same apparatus. i.e. converting a circular action into a linear action like a Peaucellier linkage does. IOW's change a torque to a force.

Lastly, the Prime Mover as mentioned in MT15. IMO this is not a single mechanical device that does something physically extraordinary. But is the combination of the dual connectedness principles and the SB's/correct handle design to create an OOB sweet spot.

Therefore there is no single mechanical principle or device that will miraculously break the Law of Levers, or lifts more than falls when all said and done etc. But there is a combination of mechanical principles, driven by falling connected weights themselves, that does produce a positive albeit temporary torque surplus and permanent innate wheel momentum buildup.

Cue the song "I did it my way" for most of us.

Nice! Your reasoning is the closest to my own, that I have read in here so far..

Best
ØR

[IamAllergicToEntropy]

Hi George I hope patents do not cost much in Germany. Your idea is very close to this:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/mus ... .htm#balls

Excellent craftsmanship on your work! I wish I had that ability. I have been sitting on my idea that solves the problem that every overbalanced wheel has now for over 2 and a half years. My disability is my barrier, so I must have certain parts made for me. I am now finally able to do small tasks, but the more difficult I will let others do. I know show don't just tell. :)