The Science Behind Bessler's Wheel

[UbWe]

The Science Behind Bessler's Wheel

Okay you haters, only discus math and mechanics (commonly known as engineering) and the laws of physics. And to do this, we'll keep things simple, okay? I am offering you haters the Olive Branch of Peace. We'll use the form f(x) = ∫ ∆y/∆x. This is so simple because the integral sets limits so the way
to calculate torque and work will be f(x) = ∫ ∆a sin x/∆ a cos x. Then it can be graphed or even use a little algebra to find the solution.
And why this way will work best is it will quantify all work being done by weights on the wheel and the work that counter torque and lifting weights
consumes. And with the peacock's tails, I might be able to write an equation for that. To give you an idea, this is how I factored the relationship between the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars.

The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars. x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the times further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun’s gravitational field. The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403. This allows for Earth to be 93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars. And for Mars to be 93/(1+.02395)^449 = 0.0022 bars while it is .00658 bars.

If you guys check the math you'll see that the Earth's atmospheric pressure is relative to both Venus and Mars. And that is my original work. Please show these other forum members that you can act like adults and discuss only things that pertain to Bessler's Wheel. And now everyone knows why I like the
Bessler build that I'm doing, I did the math and spent a lot of money and time building.

p.s., With gravity's acceleration being 9.81m/s, that would also be multiplied by the cosine value. And then that by the % that net torque is on the wheel.
And then that might need to be averaged to determine the rim speed of the wheel (for rpm).

[UbWe]

Once how math and science apply to a concept, it helps. With previous builds I needed to become better at wood working and designing my builds.
A sturdy wheel can have a lighter frame. When Bessler used scissors like in MT 138 - 143, that would allow for both a light frame and one that is sturdy.
That would be for a more accurate recreation of his wheel(s).
One of his clues was as 1 weight (hammer) approached the axle, another moved away from it. And Bessler said there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way. I flipped one of the guys and one hammer is at the "axle" and one is away from it. To calculate the work to lift the weights, the 4 to 1 ratio will be the average ratio. Sometimes the ratio will be lower and sometimes it will be higher. Using a peacock's tail that covers a rotation of 90º and the wheel will rotate more. This is because the lever will start out basically perpendicular to the peacock's tail and then it will end at a 90º angle to it.
Since this is the first build using this specific design, a lot about it will remain unknown. The wheel should work to some degree but I can't say how well.
One major question is if the peacock's tail covered a 45º section of a circle, would it rotate more quickly or more slowly? In both instances the same 4 to 1 ratio will be used but then it gets into something like f = ma which is f = m * d/t. What that basically suggests is that since the amount of work will be the same that if it takes twice as long to do the work then it uses less energy as the wheel rotates because it is spread out over time. And this is one reason why I'll use both math and science when I consider a build and is why I decided to go with a 90º section of a circle for the peacock's tails that I'm using.
One way to consider it, f = m * d is divided by time. The more time it takes then the less work required per second. It's basically a fraction like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc. The larger the denominator then the lower the value of the fraction. And I think to solve this will require realizing the net torque and the average velocity because of gravity. And the moment of inertia for the wheel will need to be estimated.

[JUBAT]

I think you've homed in on some very important details here Jim. I've studied the toys page for years and certainly there is merit in trying to mimic what is going on with those weights as that seems to be the key Bessler was trying to convey.

Do you think the thing in the middle that the hammers are hitting would represent the hub? To me they look like the ends of columns if you've ever seen ancient Roman and Greek architecture...thats what I'm referring to.

Thanks for this post. Very well written and you have a gift of pinpoint articulation.

[UbWe]

Jubat, I'm only doing this because this is Bessler's legacy and a repeat of 300 years ago will make people who pursue perpetual motion a
running joke as a bunch of losers. What they are striking is the hub. But to use it differently they need to be spread further apart. And now they are the top overbalanced weight

he 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.
https://besslerwheel.com/writings/das_triumphans.html

and the under balanced weight

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. same link as above

And when Bessler wrote Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum, in English it's The Triumphant Perpetual Mobile Orffyreus
I think when you find out the amount of small details I have to make, you'll understand building like this is a lot of work. I also think I can teach you enough algebra and calculus to discuss torque and f = m * d/t. It's like I've been trying to tell you about this, the clues align like stars in the night sky. And if people visit this forum someone will need to be able to discuss Bessler's Wheel.
With the math and science, it will be what applies to perpetual motion. And with the spreadsheets that I have, I should be able to clean one up so factoring
f(x) = ∫ ∆a sin x/∆ a cos x would be cut and paste for the most part. It'd be what values you want to use and I use Linux but spreadsheets should all have the
Σ (sigma function) which allows you to add, average, etc. a column.

When Bessler says vortices, he's talking about a whirlpool or whirlwind. And with some of the language they use in science I'd be able to get you familiar with what they like using and when. An example is when a bound system is mentioned, that refers to thermodynamics. An unbalanced force has to do with Newton's laws of motion. When certain words are used you'll understand the context that they're being used in. And I apply the same concept to my builds to keep the function of the parts separated.
I took screenshots of 2 different spreadsheets that I use. One shows about how I discovered the mathematical relationship in atmospheric pressures (before using f(x) = dy/dx) and the other one has the sine/cosine values for 0º to 90º. And what this all means is that you could be the "Candy Man". If someone has a sweet tooth for a spreadsheet you'll have their candy.
It wouldn't be surprising if more people took an interest in spreadsheets because once the spreadsheet is finished it simplifies a lot of calculations. And with different designs, torque and work will be easy to calculate.

This is a link to spreadsheet I uploaded to dropbox. You'll be able to download it and you should be able to open it. Then you'll kind of understand some of what goes into my work. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yruagexm ... nqjst&dl=0

p.s., I know Linux uses radians and not anything related to "SOHCAHTOA" (sine = opposite/hypotenuse, cosine = adjacent/hypotenuse. tangent = opposite/adjacent) which is what allows for the value as determined by a right triangle. That's other math I can explain to you later if you want to learn it. I do not know if Excel, etc. uses what SOHCAHTOA allows for.

Jubat, this is some of the work that goes into what I do. My physics experiment? That is also a very serious project like Bessler's Wheel. I can simplify
analyzing perpetual motion machine designs but not that other science.

[Tarsier79]

Please show these other forum members that you can act like adults and discuss only things that pertain to Bessler's Wheel.

That would be a nice change.

.s., I know Linux uses radians and not anything related to "SOHCAHTOA" (sine = opposite/hypotenuse, cosine = adjacent/hypotenuse. tangent = opposite/adjacent) which is what allows for the value as determined by a right triangle. That's other math I can explain to you later if you want to learn it. I do not know if Excel, etc. uses what SOHCAHTOA allows for.

This is funny. I don't understand 3rd grade math. The right triangle rules can be used with radians.

Also, these calculations are irrelevant as soon as there is an interaction with something like a ramp (or other simple machine) (which is why you cannot comprehend why your last and current builds cannot ever work as designed.)
Bessler clearly understood these limitations as shown in MT, although he refers to it generally as "friction".

[UbWe]

With what I built in 2019, it is similar to what I am building today. The top and bottom weights will be lifted and they both use a large disc.
If I had been allowed to discuss my work then I might've realized it then. I find it interesting when people have no complex builds, show no
math and no science and then claim they know something.
When I add pegs to my peacock's tails I'll use f(x) = n * (x - 1)/x-1 = z or just use f(x) = 40/x-1 = z. That has to do with the spacing/gaps between pegs to help make sure the "kennel" stays in place. And I find it disappointing when people say that The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another. Why perpetual motion is impossible. The Earth's gravitational field has no energy.
This science is so easy. It will be sad after I'm successful and people visit this forum just to hear "it can't work". It is just like one member posted, I need attention. Isn't he getting it at home? I hope you guys aren't afraid of learning a little math and science. And when I say spreadsheets take it to copy and
paste easy, it does. It's funny in a way but I think "challenging" the IPCC with their own report might be fun. I mean I'm talking about what Bessler wrote
and what a lot of people talk about and with the IPCC, I'll be saying we can't reduce CO2 emissions because the IPCC's report says so.
Notice that parallel? Could you imagine if I say that this forum is like the IPCC? It's like you guys are afraid of Bessler actually having built a reproducible wheel while the IPCC is afraid of people finding out that CO2 is saving the ozone layer. How crazy is that? And to make that even better, water vapor which is H2O which is the #1 GHG (greenhouse gas) works with CO2. I mean this is so wild not even Hollywood made a movie about something (twice, this forum and the IPCC) as absurd as this.
And FYI, with my experiment and associated theories, if I'm right then PhD level scientists might want to work with me to help their career. You guys don't get this, do you? Who will stand up to you guys and build Bessler's Wheel while offering to teach someone the math and science to be credible? And now who will ignore what the IPCC promotes and follow the science? You guys do not want to be the IPCC of perpetual motion. I can simplify algebra and calculus for you. With physics, you won't need to know things like the Joules-Thomson throttling process or coefficient, Boltzman's ideal gas law or Max Planck's work on black body radiation.
The science you'd need to know is the laws of conservation of energy and momentum and Newton's laws of motion. To give you an idea, with
f(x) = ∫ ∆a sin x/∆ a cos x, a and x are the same values for sine and cosine. What this means is 30º is for both of them but they invert their numerical value. While sine is 0.5, cosine is 0.866. And with the Linux spreadsheet, if you say 30º sine then your answer will be πr/180 * 30 and it will not be 0.5. Why knowing the software being used matters.
And with the work I pursue, science and engineering are defined by math and I can accept that.

[JUBAT]

Jim your most recent posts are a breath of fresh air. I'll be straight up with you - I don't understand it all, but thanks for just explaining it to the best of your ability. I'm serious and not trying to kiss your ass when I say your posts are very well written. I understand you have strong convictions about the past and we get that, but thanks for letting it rest at the moment so we can focus on this wheel. Thank you for that.

I know straight up what you mean about the hard work that goes into the wheels. I see your builds - tons of work to build them on this level. Again, not kissing your ass, just straight up saying it like it is. You have real talent and it's blatantly obvious you pour your heart into them. It's a shame they haven't worked yet, but you have more hope and faith than in this than the vast majority of people.

I can assure you that from my vantage point, you're always welcome to discuss your work and in fact I've encouraged it. We know you are royally pissed off about stuff that happened in the past. We all get it and as valid as it seems to you, it's much appreciated if you can just let it rest - not to invalidate how you feel - but just to keep the peace and get on with things. You have much to contribute and a well written post from you is truly worth reading. I might not agree nor understand all you have to say, but I'll go on record again stating that I encourage you to build and freely discuss your wheel. I'm not authority, but I'll never fight you on it. I do fight bullshit though... Also, if I say something in error, you're free to correct me right back.

Back to the wheel though...

I've used SOHCAHTOA before...had to use it in quality control at a job I worked involving drive-line parts. The current understanding of science though invalidates the possibility of perpetual motion, therefore there almost has to be a violation in the energy requirements and expenditure by the mechanism(s) in the wheel does it not? Something has to not react in a way science expects it to. At some point, the interaction of the weights with gravity or due to gravity creates a situation where the wheel can revolve. Just thinking about it defies everything and anything we've ever seen or known. You spin a bike tire, it gradually slows down. You spin a top, it does the same. You push a swing, it oscillates, then stops. There is something causing a reset of the weights based on a downward force or a downward force coupled with rotation or maybe a downward force redirected somehow. I still insist on the total lack of any appreciable energy being available to move much of anything in the wheel. Do you think impacts and springs are used as a way to bank kinetic energy and release it later in the rotation or that even necessary to affect rotation?

[UbWe]

Jim your most recent posts are a breath of fresh air. I'll be straight up with you - I don't understand it all, but thanks for just explaining it to the best of your ability. I'm serious and not trying to kiss your ass when I say your posts are very well written. I understand you have strong convictions about the past and we get that, but thanks for letting it rest at the moment so we can focus on this wheel. Thank you for that.

I know straight up what you mean about the hard work that goes into the wheels. I see your builds - tons of work to build them on this level. Again, not kissing your ass, just straight up saying it like it is. You have real talent and it's blatantly obvious you pour your heart into them. It's a shame they haven't worked yet, but you have more hope and faith than in this than the vast majority of people.

I can assure you that from my vantage point, you're always welcome to discuss your work and in fact I've encouraged it. We know you are royally pissed off about stuff that happened in the past. We all get it and as valid as it seems to you, it's much appreciated if you can just let it rest - not to invalidate how you feel - but just to keep the peace and get on with things. You have much to contribute and a well written post from you is truly worth reading. I might not agree nor understand all you have to say, but I'll go on record again stating that I encourage you to build and freely discuss your wheel. I'm not authority, but I'll never fight you on it. I do fight bullshit though... Also, if I say something in error, you're free to correct me right back.

Back to the wheel though...

I've used SOHCAHTOA before...had to use it in quality control at a job I worked involving drive-line parts. The current understanding of science though invalidates the possibility of perpetual motion, therefore there almost has to be a violation in the energy requirements and expenditure by the mechanism(s) in the wheel does it not? Something has to not react in a way science expects it to. At some point, the interaction of the weights with gravity or due to gravity creates a situation where the wheel can revolve. Just thinking about it defies everything and anything we've ever seen or known. You spin a bike tire, it gradually slows down. You spin a top, it does the same. You push a swing, it oscillates, then stops. There is something causing a reset of the weights based on a downward force or a downward force coupled with rotation or maybe a downward force redirected somehow. I still insist on the total lack of any appreciable energy being available to move much of anything in the wheel. Do you think impacts and springs are used as a way to bank kinetic energy and release it later in the rotation or that even necessary to affect rotation?

Change your picture, it's not you. As for spinning a bicycle tire, is this what you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H98BgRzpOM

What they don't understand is that a chain-fall on a hoist will bend at 90º and its end will float in the air. I worked as a millwright helper working on steam turbines and 1500 kWh generators. The bicycle tire changes its orientation to gravity just as the chain-fall did but the relationship to gravity is off by 90º.
The question is why.

[WaltzCee]

.
.

p.s., I know Linux uses radians

Open office CALC toggles between radians & degrees. Select math functions & you'll find it

[UbWe]

.
.

p.s., I know Linux uses radians

Open office CALC toggles between radians & degrees. Select math functions & you'll find it

Not in Linux. They use radians. Quit lying. Oops, he said sheep shed and föcked a sheep. Please learn your OSs,
it's sad when you attack Linux when you apparently don't use their OS. It shows.

p.s., Please discuss Bessler and his work. I think we are evolving to the point of saying Bessler's work can be realized.
That is what matters. I'm not Bessler just as you aren't. I think he deserves respect for his work.

[WaltzCee]

.
.

DEGREES
Converts radians into degrees.

Syntax:
DEGREES(radians)

radians is the angle in radians to be converted to degrees.
Example:
DEGREES(PI())

returns 180 degrees

RADIANS
Converts degrees to radians.

Syntax:
RADIANS(degrees)

degrees is the angle in degrees to be converted to radians.
Example:
RADIANS(90)

returns 1.5707963267949, which is PI/2 to Calc's accuracy.

The OS CALC is running on is irrelevent. It has a toggle like most scientific calculators. You're speaking about spread sheets.

I cut my teeth on msDOS, some primos, a bit of UNIX. It has been a while.

[WaltzCee]

Not in Linux. They use radians. Quit lying. Oops, he said sheep shed and föcked a sheep. Please learn your OSs,
it's sad when you attack Linux when you apparently don't use their OS. It shows.

p.s., Please discuss Bessler and his work. I think we are evolving to the point of saying Bessler's work can be realized.
That is what matters. I'm not Bessler just as you aren't. I think he deserves respect for his work.

I attacked Linux? Precisely how?

If you'd like people to discuss Bessler, you should avoid your self aggrandizing tangents.

[UbWe]

Not in Linux. They use radians. Quit lying. Oops, he said sheep shed and föcked a sheep. Please learn your OSs,
it's sad when you attack Linux when you apparently don't use their OS. It shows.

p.s., Please discuss Bessler and his work. I think we are evolving to the point of saying Bessler's work can be realized.
That is what matters. I'm not Bessler just as you aren't. I think he deserves respect for his work.

I attacked Linux? Precisely how?

If you'd like people to discuss Bessler, you should avoid your self aggrandizing tangents.

Are you saying I said a cos θ/a sin θ? Can you show me where? And I did not say you attacked Linux. What I said was
that Linux uses radians only when sine or cosine is considered. How is stating how their Libre Office software works
an attack on anyone? I merely stated a fact.
I edited this comment to include θ lest you accuse me of saying I was talking radians and not degrees.

[UbWe]

.
.

DEGREES
Converts radians into degrees.

Syntax:
DEGREES(radians)

radians is the angle in radians to be converted to degrees.
Example:
DEGREES(PI())

returns 180 degrees

RADIANS
Converts degrees to radians.

Syntax:
RADIANS(degrees)

degrees is the angle in degrees to be converted to radians.
Example:
RADIANS(90)

returns 1.5707963267949, which is PI/2 to Calc's accuracy.

The OS CALC is running on is irrelevent. It has a toggle like most scientific calculators. You're speaking about spread sheets.

I cut my teeth on msDOS, some primos, a bit of UNIX. It has been a while.

On DOS, really? The last time MicroSoft (MS) allowed access to the root tree or DOS files was probably before the year 2000. Linux allows for access to DOS but it seems no one else has an open file system. Show where MS allows you to access your DOS. I showed you my access and now show me yours.

p.s., why I operate with Linux.

[WaltzCee]

.

p.s., I know Linux uses radians

Open office CALC toggles between radians & degrees. Select math functions & you'll find it

Not in Linux. They use radians. Quit lying.

Is this why you like your Montana farmer? She lets ewe sleep with the livestock?

• Oops, he said sheep shed and föcked a sheep.

Please learn your OSs,

it's sad when you attack Linux when you apparently don't use their OS. It shows.

And I did not say you attacked Linux.

p.s., Please discuss Bessler and his work. I think we are evolving to the point of saying Bessler's work can be realized.
That is what matters. I'm not Bessler just as you aren't. I think he deserves respect for his work.

You should follow your own advice.