A blueprint of Bessler's wheel question

[Ed]

John, the first "missing" topic he says is:

"to build any working PM device you must first know what PM itself is, and the circumstances in which it already, albeit invisibly, exists throughout the universe"

and the second is:

"we ourselves haven't really progressed an inch (in 300 years) in terms of changing our own vain and selfish attitudes."

I'm sure these things have been discussed in some form throughout the forum throughout the years, but another thing that sometimes is conspicuously avoided is the "New Topic" button. Silverfox, I suggest you use this button to enlighten us all.

[Wubbly]

I created a mech that would start at 12 and make a complete revolution and almost make the second. It was not intended to be a prime mover in any such way.

Crazy Dave,
If you have a mech that does more than one complete revolution on its own, then isn't the problem solved?
If I had a mec that did more than one complete revolution on its own, I would focus all my attention on it, add more mecs and have a working wheel.
You need to ask youself why it is not making the second revolution. It sounds like something is not completely resetting.

[John Collins]

Thanks Ed. I did understand the topics in question but as you suggest - its all old stuff that's been thrashed around endlessly.

Personally I don't like to use the PM name for Bessler's wheel because I don't think it's a fair description. I have argued ad infinitum that PM is defined as having no access to external energy and as such is completely useless as a means of continuously turning wheel, so to call Bessler's wheel a PM device is to say that it is impossible in which case we are all wasting our time.

Secondly, some among us may describe our attitude as 'vain and selfish', I do not. Without our competitive instincts we would still be back in the stone age (no offence to those guys who had it rough). Perhaps we haven't changed in 300 years but 'we' are all different and I refuse to be branded the same as every other person on this planet - we are as diverse as it is possible to be, some even with the highest ideals and yet the lowest morals of anyone; others various shades of in between. We are all different all the time. True we share certain characteristics some of the time but don't tar us all with the same brush, each of is unique in our own way.

Rant over!

JC

[jim_mich]

There are two different definition of Perpetual Motion. One definition is used by the scientific and educational community. The other definition is used by the PM enthusiast and by people in the past.


Scientific Perpetual Motion:

Motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction.


Classical Perpetual Motion:

Motion that continues indefinitely without any tangible source of energy; possibly due to gravity or manipulation of inertia.


A tangible source of energy would include anything that can be sensed or measured such as electricity, pressure variations, temperature variations, all types of fuels, radiant energy of any type, etc. Any type of energy that can be blocked from flowing into a device is considered a tangible energy source.

Energy that is not tangible would include gravity and the inertial effects of motion. Such energy cannot be blocked by a container. If a device gains energy from gravity or from the inertial effects of its motion then these sources of energy are considered to come from within the device.


The scientific and educational communities firmly and rightly believe that a device cannot move perpetually unless it gains energy from somewhere to overcome friction and possibly do work. If all external tangible energy is excluded and since internal energies such as gravity and inertia are considered to be conservative then they see no way for any device to be able to perpetually move. So in their minds there is no difference between Scientific Perpetual Motion (SPM) and Classical Perpetual Motion (CPM). They think both are impossible and thus they see no need to distinguish between the two.

I believe we must start making a distinction between SPM and CPM. SPM is impossible because of its definition. CPM might be possible because it includes things like gravity and momentum that cannot be blocked by a container. We must educate others that what we are looking for is Classical Perpetual Motion, which we can abbreviate on this forum as CPM.

[John Collins]

Nicely put Jim. I haven't seen your CPM actually worded like that in any text book but I like the definition, it allows devices such as Bessler's, which don't fit orthodox science.

JC

[Stewart]

Dr .. I believe Bessler said something to the effect that it 'revolved spontaneously a little' - I have mentioned this before & find it a curious thing to say - spontaneously, a little - anything can move spontaneously if OOB but then it reaches the PQ point that we all know too well - so what could he mean, spontaneously a little - well, it could mean that while not OU it could swing higher than might be predicted with known physics - he later developed & optimized the action & eventually achieved self sustaining OU that did not return to the PQ - IMO.

P.S. I don't think 'spontaneously a little' means one cross-arm barely revolving but the translation might be misconstrued, or not as the case may be !

Hi Fletcher - the word 'spontaneously' does not exist in the original German text! Stewart

[silverfox]

If my meaning wasn't ubundantly clear, by all means feel free to edit it down to a comfortable fifty words or less for yourself, JC.

Your're the professional writer here, not me. If you and Ed don't seem to "get it" that can only be because it makes you feel somewhat confused or uncomfortable to be kicked by a couple of horses you'd prefer to pretend are dead, as far as I can see.

That's your problem, not mine, gentlemen, and I'm sorry but I'm not responsible for whatever sensations you happen to have in relation to your own personal perspectives on those particular issues.

I merely pointed out just how critical and central I happen to consider them to be and just how predictably and promptly I expected some knee-jerk reactions to try and sweep sweep them straight off the table or else pretend they didn't exist at all would take.

I beleive that you have amply demonstrated that intent by the nature of your own questions.

If you intended to do otherwise than that then I suggest you state your own positions up front and as clearly as possible, lest I unfairly rake you over the coals any more than you've already managed to make me do...hmmm?

[Michael]

Question, maybe redundant. Would anyone here object is a physicist or two joined this site?
"I have argued ad infinitum that PM is defined as having no access to external energy..." And you would be correct John. And it can be said the root of energy is motion. Some product in motion ( kinetic ) or some product with the ability to move ( potential ).
Gravity is not energy. Gravity does not move unless the body it surrounds is made to move. A magnetic field is not energy. A magnetic field does not move unless the body it emanates from is made to move, Note I said a magnetic field and not electromagnetism. Any device that runs solely on either of these is a true perpetual motion machine in every sense of the term. If, a machine did run on an actual external source of energy, like; the sun, wind, etc. as long as that source is credited as being part of the system of the machine, and as long as that source was magically replenished so it never ran out, then the machine would be one called perpetual too.
The root of why, it is reasoned, that a perpetual motion machine can never be invented is just like when you mix white and black you get a balanced product called grey, when you mix a greater ( potential ) and a lesser, you also get a balance called Entropy.
Side note; energy is increased by increasing the greater or decreasing the lesser.

Edit; I too thought you had a good post JIm ( this last part coming in after Fletcher ).

[Fletcher]

Thanks Stewart - I'll attempt to expunge the word 'spontaneously' from my biological hard drive - it's harder to do than you think once you've read it a thousand times ;7)

Jim .. I too like your definitions of SPM & CPM - so my brand of chasing one's tail would be a wheel that uses tangible [sometimes called legitimate] able to be sensed & measured energy sources - but since I also fall in the camp that thinks [erroneously or not, yet to be proved] that gravity & the inertial effects of motion are indeed conservative then I can't call it chasing elusive CPM either - that's why I personally refer to it as the search for Free Energy [FE], so that it does include tangible sources for input.

Cox's clock quickly comes to mind, circa Bessler, also Stirling type engines that may have used diurnal temperature variations to change air pressure within a vessel, expanding & contracting it, & by mechanical linkages turn that force differential into mechanical work - granted both methods, naturally occurring barometric pressure changes & diurnal temperature fluctuations, would be tediously slow & unless on an uber scale likely to be comparatively weak for doing any serious mechanical work.

But this is exactly the quandary faced in Bessler's time - did barometric & thermal inspired engines etc [able to be sensed & measured], no matter how weak, correctly fall into the definition of CPM or were they in a different class ? - Bessler strangely never entered into that discussion at all [unless I'm mistaken] other than to say his was a gravity wheel, which under your description would be CPM - but we know that any device that is other than solid state & has a vertical component to its movement & which uses mechanical principles MUST also comply & respect gravity & its influence so part of its descriptive operation could always be said to be a gravity wheel & give nothing else away.

Bessler thought his wheels were PM but were they CPM or FE ? - And, if they were FE [like Cox's clock or diurnal temp changes] then he must have found an extraordinarily efficient & comparatively powerful tangible energy source to drive his wheels & that would be both his epiphany & genius ?

[John Collins]

No I don't feel confused or uncomfortable silverfox, I just disagree with you on some aspects of your post, in which case its either both our problem or neither's.

Do some searches and you will find plenty of discussion on those issues you raised. I have already stated my position more than once so perhaps we should leave it at that.

JC

[justsomeone]

Wubbly, I can easily get 5 or so revolutions from one mech., only the mech. does not reset itself. More than one rev. isn't necessarily proof of a working concept.

If Dave's build resets the mech. and gets more than one rev. he may be on to something.

[ovyyus]

A tangible source of energy would include anything that can be sensed or measured such as electricity, pressure variations, temperature variations, all types of fuels, radiant energy of any type, etc. Any type of energy that can be blocked from flowing into a device is considered a tangible energy source.

Heat was poorly understood in Bessler's time. It wasn't until the mid 1800's that it was understood why two blocks of ice rubbed against one another would melt. Bessler would have no means to measure or detect heat transfer inside his wheel and, as we well know, it's practically impossible to block the flow of heat between a device and it's environment.

Therefore, thermal applications must be added to the CPM list of possible explanations for Bessler's wheel. Furthermore, unlike gravity and inertia, heat is an already proven (legitimate) energy source, which IMO takes it's application to the top of that list.

[FunWithGravity2]

I created a mech that would start at 12 and make a complete revolution and almost make the second. It was not intended to be a prime mover in any such way.

Crazy Dave,
If you have a mech that does more than one complete revolution on its own, then isn't the problem solved?
If I had a mec that did more than one complete revolution on its own, I would focus all my attention on it, add more mecs and have a working wheel.
You need to ask youself why it is not making the second revolution. It sounds like something is not completely resetting.

Hello wubbly, the mech i am speaking of is a POP of something i am working on. Unfortunately I am not with complete understanding of what force or combination of forces is causing it to gain OU on the first rotation, it would require IMHO not much to make it reset but what i must first understand is why it is doing what it is doing. Closing the loop would be a futile attempt at the moment without complete understanding.


A few months ago i believed that the COM of the system was dropping and that was the reason it was coming up the ascending side easily, i assumed it weighed more one the descending side. Well i was wrong, on the descent it rests on a static point and the mass is closer to the center than on the ascending side.

So yesterday i played with it and Immediately noticed that i was getting 200 plus degrees of positive torque and this now must be the reason why i was able to get it to a full rotation. When started in this way i can actually build up enough momentum to carry it through 2 full rotations. I thought this had to be the reason i was getting OU, it must be the overbalance of degrees of torque.

To prove this i advanced the Mech 22.5 degrees so that it would only have 180 degrees on the descent, surely this would not make it around. But it did, so i must be wrong, although it barely makes it around when it is advance 22.5 degrees.


I then stared at it like i was a moron, AHHH now i have it. i am starting late but i am in the Sweet spot from 2-3 for that extra 22.5 degrees. So i thought that i must have it. thats the reason. I am applying peak torque for a longer period of time then when i am wasting it from 12-2 so this must be the reason it pushes itself up on the ascent even though it is heavier.

Then starring at it some more to see how its swings on the ascent i started noticing it swung and might be creating the pendulum effect where it becomes weightless on the ends of the swing. So maybe this is it?


Right now i have at least five variables that might(or might not) be contributing to the effect i am getting. Placing a resetting mech on the wheel may cause me to counter effect the real motive force if i don't yet know what that is.


Anyway, this is NOT the prime mover. It is an OOB system that is designed to operate CW or CCW. I am sorry i have not yet shown it but am dying to. I am drawing up detailed descriptions of this mech and documenting as much as i can ( i dont think its patentable) but i want to establish priority before i release it to get everyones opinion. I have been so busy patting myself on the back with the primemover that i had absolutely no idea that the OOB system might show the potential for breakthroughs. I assumed the secondary OOB system would be a no- brainer. Stupid me.



Dave

[jim_mich]

Bill,

I think the action of heat was fairly well understood in Bessler's time. Expansion and contraction of air, water/steam and even iron was well known. Iron rims were fastened to wooden wheel by heating the rims so that they would expand. Steam engines were starting to be built.

Bessler plainly states that his wheels where powered by weights and he plainly states that the weights gained force by moving. I do not think any expansion and contraction due to heat would be considered PM even in Bessler's time. Until the thermocouple was invented all heat engines used expansion and contraction.

The only way that thermal applications could be included would be if the mechanism caused a pumping of heat in some manner that caused a gain in heat that was then used to produce pressure to rotate the wheel. If Bessler used such a method then surely he would need to know enough about such things so that he would know that the energy gain was being produced by heat from the environment. Bessler plainly stated that his machine was not affected by heat or cold.

Either Bessler was a liar or we must believe what he plainly said. The force of the weights moving within his wheel powered his wheel. I know that this sounds impossible, but that is what Bessler stated. Either he lied. Or he told us the truth.

[ovyyus]

Jim, was Cox a liar when he referred to the movement of his clock as perpetual motion? Either he was a liar or he told us the truth?

If you can figure that Bessler "plainly said" anything then you must be lightyears ahead of the pack :)