A blueprint of Bessler's wheel question

[daxwc]

And so a definition distinction is to (page 74) be made between
the terms “perpetual� and “eternal�. But “perpetual� my device
certainly is in the sense that it is not a clockwork mechanism
which requires the use of springs which need to be wound up
again or weights which need to be raised up again continually –
even if the intervals involved are as long as you like. (This has
already been adequately explained.) For such machines as
require wind, water, weights or springs for their operation (no
matter if this operation lasts many years) do not possess the
principle of motion internally, rather externally to themselves. DT pg 216

I am sure Bessler's and Gravesande's definition of PM were the same, his friend Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would have filled him in. There is a good possiblity Besser was decieved by the science of his day.

tks

[ovyyus]

So Bessler and 'sGravesande believed the same thing because they were both friends with Leibniz? Makes perfect sense. The point is made.

[daxwc]

Read from pg 215 to 217 in digital DT... two pages it took him to answer your question, because everybody was poking him in the eye with that sharp stick.

[rlortie]

Jim has explained his version above, hopefully without starting a flaming debate which I have neither the time or desire to get into, I will attempt to define my version (OPINION);

I say that Cp and Cf are not the same force. In fact Cp used in the sense of rotary motion is not a force, it is static inertia, such as pushing on an immovable object Cp represents a fixed impediment that Cf cannot break through, if it does then you no longer have Cf or Cp in a radial path.

Cf is a force created by inertia, it can be measured and will vary with velocity only if it is physically contained by a barrier or containment that presents no force in its self. It is no different than trying to push your fist through the top of your desk.

How doe one measure the force from the desk top to your fist and what is creating this force if there is one? The weight on a string is applying tension on the string, there is no difference which end the tension is measured from as it is Cf pulling outward, there is no force pushing inward.


A weight riding on a wheel produces an outward force that is not balanced by an inward force, it is contained by physical means having no force other than inertial mass to keep it from allowing the weight to follow a straight trajectory.

Whenever Cp is present then you will also have Cf present, and visa versa.

True! but at static there is no Cf yet the physical means of Cp still remains.

Gravity pushes the Moon toward the Earth and gravity pushes the Earth toward the Moon. Do we have a different words for gravity depending on whether we are on the Moon or on the Earth? No! Then why do we need different words for Cf and Cp?

Is this a clerical error or are you serious? Gravity attracts.

I was taught that gravity pulled on the moon and the moon pulled on the earth (high and low tides) I have never heard of them 'pushing each other. So what keeps them from colliding? Cf with a little Am thrown in.

The fact that both are rotating while one revolves around the other may have something to do with it. But I am not going there.

Someone once said that we need to now which is which during calculations. This make no sense because both are tensions and tensions are always positive. The restraint always pulls inward while the weight always pulls outward. When the motion stops then the force also stops. The force is an artifact of the motion.

I agree that it makes no sense but my reasoning is; there is only one tension and that is the weight pulling outward. There is no tension pushing or pulling inward unless the mechanism is designed to do so, it is as static as the top of your desk.

Some people state that Cp (the inward pull of the restraint) is a real force while Cf (the outward tnedency of the weight) is a ficticious force. This conjures up thoughts of truth vs lies or real vs fake.

Cp is not an inward pulling force, it is a physical restraint. To gain a physical pulling force you must pull in, such as letting the string wind up around your finger.

As a final comment I see no reason to differentiate between Cp and Cf, so I simple use CF to mean that force that develops between a restraint and a weight moving in a curve path that is caused by inertial momentum of the moving weight.

I agree, there is no reason to differentiate as Cf is the only variable and the tension gradient is measured from a fixed point referred to as Cp.

Now, why the debate if I agree? Because I am chasing Cp as a variable, when you wrap the string up on your finger you are creating tension (force) and an elliptical orbit adding angular momentum and angular velocity which both in themselves is considered force.

For an example lets take a coopered wooden axle 8" in diameter, and tie a string and weight to it. Start the whole thing turning until Cf forces the string to become tight, stop the axle and let the string continue to wind. You are decreasing the radial path by an elliptical path diminishing at 25.1327" per revolution, That is Cp at work!

I leave it to the mathematicians to derive what happens if the string is released allowing not Cf but inertia to throw the weight in a straight trajectory at a right angle to the axle until the restraint once again becomes tight. If you have much weight you better have one tough axle.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Gravity pushes the Moon toward the Earth and gravity pushes the Earth toward the Moon. Do we have a different words for gravity depending on whether we are on the Moon or on the Earth? No! Then why do we need different words for Cf and Cp?

Is this a clerical error or are you serious? Gravity attracts.

Ralph, please see Scott's links page. Scroll down to a little past the middle. Read up on "Push Gravity Theories". Pay particular attention to the link labeled Gravity, Inertia, and Radiation which points to Stanley V. Byers' website where he and his son Michael D. Byers discuss Gravity Shielding as a cause of gravity.

As far as the rest of what you posted, you have made way too many errors of statement for me to waste time trying to correct them all. I'll just agree to disagree.

[nicbordeaux]

Does the scientific community consider gravity an energy source?

There you have the problem in a nutshell (I can't remenber the exact English expression, but nutshell sounds better than nutcase).

Anyway, if anybody doesn't consider gravity as an energy source, they are nuts. Scientists or not. You can argue about it being conservative or not, it is an energy source.

Anybody doesn't agree, OK, let's do some semantics : what is a source ?

[Fletcher]

And so a definition distinction is to (page 74) be made between the terms “perpetual� and “eternal�.

But “perpetual� my device certainly is in the sense that it is not a clockwork mechanism which requires the use of springs which need to be wound up again or weights which need to be raised up again continually –
even if the intervals involved are as long as you like. (This has
already been adequately explained.)

For such machines as require wind, water, weights or springs for their operation (no matter if this operation lasts many years) do not possess the principle of motion internally, rather externally to themselves. DT pg 216

And so a definition distinction is to (page 74) be made between the terms “perpetual� and “eternal�.

Bessler goes to great, but unnecessary lengths, to show that machines fail due to breakages & wear & tear, so questioning the term & proper use of perpetual or eternal in the strict sense - this is largely a red herring argument as all would accept that.

But “perpetual� my device certainly is in the sense that it is not a clockwork mechanism which requires the use of springs which need to be wound up again or weights which need to be raised up again continually – even if the intervals involved are as long as you like. (This has already been adequately explained.)

Here he states that it is perpetual [notwithstanding mechanical failure] & is not a wound up, clockwork like device that requires an external agent to restore potential into the system.

For such machines as require wind, water, weights or springs for their operation (no matter if this operation lasts many years) do not possess the principle of motion internally, rather externally to themselves. DT pg 216

Here he says it is internally motivated [according to Bessler no external agent] & restores its own potential thru movement alone - form being the essence.

Comment:

Bessler seems to be in agreement with 'sGravesande's definition as far as identifying & using external agents - what he doesn't rule out is thermal - he explicitly talks about wind, water & wound up springs to give potential to the system received from an external source - he does not mention thermal input - this may be a oversight or just wasn't on his radar at the time.

So, Bessler says that the machine received its initial movement from an external source but once dynamic sustained its movement, which was now inherent, & by default continually restored its potential from internal sources, derived from that movement, after normal mechanical frictional losses were deducted, which affect all machines.

Bessler, didn't exclude thermal sources [oversight ?] - he also believed that the form of his machine allowed for continual movement as an inherent state, once dynamic - he also believed there was no external agent [as per 'sGravesande's definition] which restored potential - he believed that the mechanisms motion alone, which was wholly internal, was the cause of the restoration of potential.

What was Bessler saying ? - that he believed that the machine restored itself & sustained itself from internal motion, but most importantly, that there was no external agent at work, in his opinion - this does not mean that there was no agent, just that in Bessler's opinion it was internal [not external] & couldn't be readily linked to the environment, which would reduce upon inspection to yet another external agent & so be no different from wind, water & springs [solar & chemical inputs to create potential] !

So, to me it reads that Bessler believed there was an agent - it's original source being the question ?!

P.S. Gravity is a field [potential] - in the field a mass free to move can loose potential energy of position & gain kinetic energy of motion - like a car taking off the handbrake on the top of a hill - it rolls down to the trough & up the next hill - never higher than it started - the important bit is that external energy had to be inputted into the system to set up the conditions i.e. the car was lifted into an initial position of potential, just like solar energy drives earth systems, then the gravity field can act to give kinetic energy to objects - is gravity a source of energy ? - no, it didn't set up the original conditions, see above.

[silverfox]

Far be it from me to try and break up Jim and Ralph's "perpetual" debate beyond pointing out that collectively they are right and individually only half so, despite neither actually being wrong to any extent while they're dishing it out.

Relentlessly drawn to one another only to gravitate into their own separate pathways before they ever get too close to striking a balance so they can do it all over again...and again...perhaps just for the fun of it....hmmm?

An object lesson that is clearly worth more intensive study on any number of levels, to be sure.

Now a wheel can obviously be propelled by either being overbalanced OR by being underbalanced, and to be propelled perpetually it would of necessity have to employ both of those methods.

That is the true nature of any "dynamic" situation. There must be at least two players taking turns with one another and being prompted by each other to go again and again, back and forth.

in terms of a wheel, that would mean that during the course of any weight's travel around it, it would also need to be moved by gravity from some outermost to an innermost limit and back again in relation to some neutral midpoint between those two positions that would form the only circle that actually has the axle as its centre.

So the pattern for any pair of weights, and indeed they must be paired individually as well as being "teamed" to create that dynamic, would be....

-overbalanced-------neutral-------underbalanced------ neutral------overbalanced-- versus
-----neutral-----underbalanced-------neutral--------overbalanced------neutral-----overbalanced-- and so forth.

There is certainly more to it than that regarding the distribution and number of weights involved or the shape of the form they would need to be carried on, but as you can see that partnership can be combined in such a way that it maintains each state so any opoosing weight can enter or exit either phase without ever interrupting the process or diection of travel as it does.

Two identical pathways one-half step apart, essentially, with no beginning or end of any kind to them.

I suggest you think about that carefully and use your logic and reasoning without being overly worried about any "scientific" interpretations, descriptions, or designations that invariably come with far too much baggage of their own in tow.

They were all crafted to describe very different states and events that do and must have some definite start and finish to them and that unspoken pre-requisite simply doesn't apply.

[nicbordeaux]

silverfox wrote ...

"in terms of a wheel, that would mean that during the course of any weight's travel around it, it would also need to be moved by gravity from some outermost to an innermost limit and back again in relation to some neutral midpoint between those two positions that would form the only circle that actually has the axle as its centre.
...

Why exclude circumfertial displacement ? A dumb example (must build this one to amuse the young'un) would be a bike wheel with really high flanges forming a sort of spool, mass at tdc is a 500 gram superball, at 3 o clock the ball is ejected, the wheel with the momentum gained by the grav pull and centrifugal/petal on the ball during 90° would revolve 360° . But so what you ask, where is your superball man, what have you gained, where is the gpe you had at tdc ? No hassle, the ball hits an angled plate from which it is projected onto another angled plate, and as it is attached to wheel by bungee elastic it lands back on top of wheel at 12 tdc. It has bounced from 90 to "360". Only needs 75% efficiency :)

Dumb idea (well, very hard to implement anyway), but other methods are conceivable. Ball has moved from inner to outer then back to inner.

[daxwc]

Flether quote:

So, to me it reads that Bessler believed there was an agent - it's original source being the question ?!

I agree, like I stated before, in my opinion Besser was decieved by the science of his day.

And in truth it now seems to me that the time is long overdue, now that I have achieved my goal, once known only to God, that I and the world should see this principle, in itself so simple, and yet at the same time so deeply hidden, of everlasting motion, described in total detail and in mathematical simplicity, in praise of God’s boundless wisdom, and for the benefit of the entire world. pg 211 DT

[Michael]

Fletcher I have a point of Bessler's that might be in agreement with you on the thermal issue. It is in a section where he is talking about perpetual motion. I'll post it up inh about 5-6 hours from now, now it's off to bed for me.

[nicbordeaux]

EDIT: posted twice by mistake Sorry.

[ovyyus]

...what he doesn't rule out is thermal - he explicitly talks about wind, water & wound up springs to give potential to the system received from an external source - he does not mention thermal input - this may be a oversight or just wasn't on his radar at the time.

I agree. What if the action of Bessler's mechanism caused an airflow to separate into hot and cold, which was then harnessed to do work by lifting weights? Heat was still largely a mystery in Bessler's time, even if it was known how to expand wagon wheel rims in a fire. Is it conceivable that Bessler noticed some small and unseen thermal effect while studying and building organs, which he then developed to some practical degree? In this scenario the action of his wheel would have appeared exactly like it was wholly internal and the energy source would have been a mystery.

Bessler would surely have known that after his secret was revealed it would be scrutinized and studied extensively, and that perhaps it's true energy source would eventually be defined. What if it was eventually determined that it wasn't a 'true PM' afterall? Of course, his honour would be intact because it would be seen that he acted in good faith but, perhaps most importantly, by then his money would be well secured.

[jim_mich]

Didn't Bessler say that if it wasn't true PM then they could have his head?

[DrWhat]

And that it could be used in very cold climate?

What about static electricity. He did mention felt I believe. I know that Stewart looked into this in 2004 and I am currently reading the posts on this.