Center of gravity used as a motive force?

[jim_mich]

I'm having a hard time visualizing a 6 (8?)" wooden axle turning in a 3/4" bearing. Wouldn't the wood be ground to a pulp in the bearing?

I think you are confused as to the wheel axles.
Stewart's most excellent drawing shows how they were made:

[eccentrically1]

That's how I thought they looked. I think dax had it confused.
So the mechanical advantage is 3/4" : 12' then.
Being acquainted with chemistry, he was probably familiar then with graphite's property as a nearly frictionless lubricant. A wheel with these specs would turn with the very slightest energy ( maybe from organ bellows, someway? Don't pile on me until you've given it some thought). If it wasn't an overbalancing wheel by design, rather it was as balanced as he could make it, it would make for a more smooth acting, efficient lever to lift weight. Shifting weight inside the wheel would make it less efficient, besides the fact they wouldn't add energy to the wheel.
Thoughts?

[daxwc]

eccentrically1

I think it did run all the way through for that reason; if they were stubs they definitely would have had a hell of a time supporting a 300+ lb. wheel,

Everything Ralph has told you is true, all I can tell you is to build one you will see the problem quick enough. I believe also the axles most likely were coopered axles also, like you see on old covered wagons. Besides to show his demonstrations he needed to use the 8� shaft as the cathead, since it works off friction.

I'm having a hard time visualizing a 6 (8?)" wooden axle turning in a 3/4" bearing. Wouldn't the wood be ground to a pulp in the bearing?

I’ll presume you think everybody here is stupid. Ratio to turn the wheel would be to the ¾� bearings; ratio to turn the loads would be to the 8� axle. Bearing contact surface is what is important without too much heat from weight.

ovyyus

How did Bessler define fraud?

Only that everything was contained within the wheel.


PS. I see I over lapped posts while making this post.

[eccentrically1]

I don't think anyone is stupid. Reverse engineering this thing can't leave out any details; for everyone's benefit who is following this thread. Why so defensive?
The wooden part of the axle didn't have to be 8" for the friction to raise a load. It could just have easily been half that. The larger the wooden axle, the less the mechanical advantage.

But the salient point is the ratio of the iron axle to the wheel. In a previous post I pasted a link to eccentric ferris wheels. Ferris wheels need relatively small motors to turn them because of the ratio of their axle to the wheel diameter. Larger ratio, less energy required to move a load.

Why did the ropes go through two pulleys to raise the load? One pulley would have worked. Two were necessary because of the relative weakness of the wheel? Or was it more pulleys?

Wolff letter to Leibniz:
"At the moment it can lift a weight of sixty pounds, but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow. The diameter of the wheel is about twelve feet, and as well, the bearing was quite thin, about one quarter of an inch and only a sixth of its length was subject to friction." - Christian

So was the bearing 1/4 " or 3/4"? Two pulleys (from the drawings)? More than four (from this observation)?

So, such a wheel would have turned easily, from the slightest bit of energy. Especially if the bearings were nearly frictionless. The total weight of the wheel could have been only 100 pounds. 32 pounds for the weights, and 68 pounds for the hollow axle and frame. Bessler could have lifted and translocated 100 pounds by himself, as the descriptions seem to indicate.

"Furthermore the inventor, Orffyreus, in front of everybody, lifted the perpetual motion machine described above, from its original wooden support. The timber posts were carefully examined both from the top and bottom as well as in the middle, particularly where a small cut was noticed. The same careful examination was devoted to the iron journals of the shaft and to the bearings."

This doesn't rule out he had help lifting it. But it seems odd that if you were going to sign your name to a certificate such as this, you would want to make it clear that he needed an assistant to help lift the wheel.

There isn't definitive proof the weights were 4 pounds. No one weighed them. They estimated their weight by hand. They could have been three pounds. There might not have eight. They estimated the number from the sound. There might have been only four. If they were shifting slightly, each one could have made two sounds, giving the impression of twice as many weights.

[Richard]

eccentrically1 ask?

Why did the ropes go through two pulleys to raise the load? One pulley would have worked. Two were necessary because of the relative weakness of the wheel? Or was it more pulleys?

...the easy answer is "vector pulling" also referred to or applied as " Z" dragging..

essentially it is to ropes and pulleys, the same as lever arms and loads.

richard

edit to add

Gregory ask

I am interested for a long time how many percentage are those (compared to the forum) who think gravity cannot be the prime mover.

richard ask

What Gravity?...here is the empirical "Gravity is theory only"

if we consider science and math "First Order Logic" or Predicated Order Logic" Gravity most certainly does not exist..this is empircal.

sounds crazy or perhaps a ( comes on a little strong) apologia to the non existance of gravity. so let us then, reason back before 1879. I.e. Gottlob Frege in hisBegriffschrift.(First Order of Logic)

let us consider gravity, scientifically, once again, before First Order Logic..
..Syllogism...(Aristotle) also Newton, Euler, Huygens, Wolf Liebniz.etc etc. etc.

Where in Syllogism science will deduce from other evidence...Gravity, is never deduced, it is only speculated on as a force to explain what lacks explanation...No disrespect to the Brilliant aforementioned, because Relativity, and specificlly Einstien fared no better..

darn gotta go bye

richard

[daxwc]

eccentrically1:

Ferris wheels need relatively small motors to turn them because of the ratio of their axle to the wheel diameter. Larger ratio, less energy required to move a load.

That is a little misleading, I am pretty sure, they don’t require less energy as the ratio goes up, they just need to go slower. If higher PE was seen with less energy you have just solved the puzzle.

http://www.real-world-physics-problems. ... ysics.html

Hmm.... interesting
http://www.witheridge-historical-archiv ... wright.htm

http://www.fullchisel.com/alburnam5.htm

http://www.wheelwrights.org/craft/13-hi ... ghts-craft

[Gregory]

It will be interesting to see if the people on your list put their hands up.

Hhmm, yeah... still around 0,003%

Gregory, well put. Ovyyously no argument from me :D

When a person says 'I believe', it usually means they don't know.

Yes, this is similar to some women thinking pattern:
Lots of times when they say no, they actually mean yes, or vice versa. :D

[11Turion]

I said "I believe" because it is what I believe. Is there anyone who actually "knows" how the Bessler wheel operated? If so, they should tell us and that would eliminate all the other possibilities that people here are considering, would it not? So, yes, I would agree with the statement that "I believe" means I don't "know." Those of you who do "know", shame on you for not sharing.

[jim_mich]

I believe that I actually know how all of Bessler's wheels worked. Shame on you for asking me to share such facts on a public forum where doing so would negate my right to obtain a patent.

[Jim Williams]

Jim_Mich

If you obtain a patent, would you then agree that it would fall under class 415 subclass 916 for perpetual motion, or would you wish for a new classification to be written.

(USPTO definition below)

916 PERPETUAL MOTION DEVICES:
Rotary pump* or motor* device which claims to operate in a closed environment without a sustaining energy source.

[Grimer]

I believe that I actually know how all of Bessler's wheels worked. Shame on you for asking me to share such facts on a public forum where doing so would negate my right to obtain a patent.

No. I'm Spartacus.

[Grimer]

...
Is there anyone who actually "knows" how the Bessler wheel operated? If so, they should tell us and that would eliminate all the other possibilities that people here are considering, would it not?

I have told them - but nobody believes me (and I can't say I blame them )

[murilo]

I believe that I actually know how all of Bessler's wheels worked. Shame on you for asking me to share such facts on a public forum where doing so would negate my right to obtain a patent.

I would be absolutely astonished and surprised if Jim would say something different than this!
One already knows very well what to expect from some. 8|
Beware of windmills and MIBs, Jim!
Woosh...
M.

[jim_mich]

Class 415 is all about hydraulic and fluid pumps and motors. It seems that the PTO got 'stuck' with a foreign perpetual motion patent that involved hydraulics and according to a patent treaty they had to classify it somewhere. So they tucked a small subclass 916 within class 415.

I've searched and I don't think there is any current classification for my wheel.

[Jim Williams]

If I read the following correctly, as subclass 916 is a cross reference of class 415, it should only contain original patents from class 415, yet class 415 subclass 916 is filled with patents of all classes and subclasses. 415/916 is apparently a dumping ground for anything appearing to be related to perpetual motion.

As 415/916 is a cross-reference, thus can have no patents original to it, but the inventions in it must have some other originating class/subclass, it appears to me there doesn't actually exist a class/subclass where a perpetual motion invention can exist on its own. It seems to me the PTO wants to act like it has a class/subclass for perpetual motion, but it has none in which such an invention can exist before it's to be cross-referenced in 415/916.

All this to say good luck finding a class/subclass that already exists.

(enclosure)

CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS

The following subclasses are collections of published disclosures pertaining to various specified aspects of the rotary kinetic fluid motor* and pump* art which aspects do not form appropriate bases for subclasses in the foregoing classification (i.e., subclasses superior hereto in the schedule). Only cross-reference patent copies reside in the cross-reference art collection subclasses; these subclasses do not contain "original" patent copies. These subclasses may be of further assistance to the searcher, either as a starting point in searching this class or as an indication of further related fields of search inside or outside the class. Thus, there is here provided a second access for retrieval of a limited number of types of disclosures.

(1) Note. Disclosures are placed in these subclasses for their value as references and as leads to appropriate main or secondary fields of search, without regard to their original classification or their claimed subject matter.
(2) Note. The disclosures found in the following subclasses are examples, only, of the indicated subject matter, and in no instance do they represent the entire extent of the prior art.