Johann Bessler information

[Gustav22]

All arguments about energy and work are futile because the physics priests redefined the meanings of these words to make them fit to their explanations ....
Regarding gravity driven systems, for me the best way to figure things out, is to find the system's center of mass and try to establish, where it is located relative to the wheel axis.

However, I agree to the fact that a wind and a water wheel can only work, because such arrangements make use of a 'medium' (wind and water) which permits the force of gravity to create a torque on the wheel.
Consequently such a medium has to be provided.
Let's provide it then, shall we?
Some recyclable mass, able to oscillate, should suffice.

Scissors mechanisms as suggested by Bessler and others come to mind.

[Dgraphic911]

I do not have to try every combination.  Sadly, to make a gravity wheel spin, what comes down, must go up.  You can never get more energy from a falling object than what is required to lift it to the place where it started from, so after frictional losses, you will always come out in the red, no matter what combination you try.

A gravity wheel alone can work, through the use of movable weights, and there are endless ways to make them move, so how can you possibly assume that its impossible for a pure gravity wheel? Have you tried every combination?

If weights in a wheel are positioned like so..........




Interestingly enough you are both 100% correct.

[utilitarian]

All arguments about energy and work are futile because the physics priests redefined the meanings of these words to make them fit to their explanations ....

Physicists have defined these meanings because they are consistent with what is observed. Had the physicists observed something else, then they would have defined the meanings accordingly.  They are not making this up.  You cannot get more energy out of a falling object than what is required to lift it to its original position.  If you doubt this, take a see-saw and play with it.  Take two objects of equal weight and see if you can make one lift the other.  Sure, you can try to use leverage, but then one of the objects does not go as high.

In a nutshell, this is why gravity wheels cannot work.  You can try to confuse and trick yourself with elaborate setups, but all they will do is fail in elaborate-looking fashion.

Look, all this is educational in some way, I suppose, but honestly, gravity wheels are a waste of time.  I am wasting my time even writing about them, but I am hoping that through my effort, you guys will waste less of your time.  You guys could be learning about things that actually have a chance of working.

[Alexioco]

Physicists have defined these meanings because they are consistent with what is observed. Had the physicists observed something else, then they would have defined the meanings accordingly.  They are not making this up.  You cannot get more energy out of a falling object than what is required to lift it to its original position.  If you doubt this, take a see-saw and play with it.  Take two objects of equal weight and see if you can make one lift the other.  Sure, you can try to use leverage, but then one of the objects does not go as high.

In a nutshell, this is why gravity wheels cannot work.  You can try to confuse and trick yourself with elaborate setups, but all they will do is fail in elaborate-looking fashion.

Look, all this is educational in some way, I suppose, but honestly, gravity wheels are a waste of time.  I am wasting my time even writing about them, but I am hoping that through my effort, you guys will waste less of your time.  You guys could be learning about things that actually have a chance of working.

Making an object go higher than what it started at is over unity and yes you are correct, how can it go higher than it started without energy? But weights going from the rim back to the axle is not going higher than it started...

[hansvonlieven]

G?day all.

@Dgraphic

Thank you for the link to the original page of MT138.

The inscription is written in old German script later known in slightly modified form as Suetterlin. It reads:

5 Kinder Spiele in welchem Joch auch was besonderes Arbeit, wer Sie auf andere Weise zu applicieren weiss.

I have included an enlarged picture of the comments below.

The key to the translation lies in the interpretation of the word Joch, the common meaning is yoke, but in this context it could also mean fulcrum or pivot.

The literal translation is:

5 children?s toys in whose yoke (fulcrum, pivot) something special works (is at work), for whoever knows how to apply it in a different manner.

So much for the translation.

General comments:

The woodcut (if that?s what it is, more on this later) is almost certainly NOT the work of Bessler. The annotations with a high degree of certainty are. The depiction of the figures and the comparatively crude execution are in stark contrast to the other illustrations and point to an earlier period, at my guess at least a hundred years earlier.
If it is indeed a woodcut that would support my argument, but without close examination of the original I cannot tell.

As to the figure on the bottom, that is not part of the drawing but was added by Bessler in his own hand to the print. This puts an entirely different complexion on the meaning, and invalidates my earlier analysis. What I think now is that Bessler showed an inverted pendulum in the shape of a spinning top that is hollowed out on the centre with a cylindrical bore. Such a contraption is notoriously unstable and needs little force to upset one way or the other. Ideal when you are trying to disturb an equilibrium with very little energy. I have drawn my interpretation next to Bessler?s drawing. See below.

As to the woodcuts, they were not anymore in common use in Bessler?s time having been superseded by etchings and engravings long before. Especially for technical drawings etchings had been in use since around 1550 and were preferred because they were clearer and easier to produce.

There is rumoured to be another copy of Maschinen Traktate somewhere in England. If true, it would be interesting to see if those copies are annotated. Does anyone know about this?

In my view the pictures in Maschinen Traktate are NOT Bessler?s work. The handwritten comments in all probability are.

Hans von Lieven