I am considering the riddle of the Bessler wheel mechanism and ways of
controlling reaction.
Bessler's wheel was probably not a perpetual motion machine as such (I
prefer not to be a believer in 'something for nothing') but rather used
gravity in some unique way. One of the only ways, I can think of, to
extract energy from the gravitational field is to drop a mass within this
field. The gained inertial momentum of a falling mass is it's aquired
gravitational energy.
One way of capturing the gravitational energy of a falling mass is to have
that mass impact into an absorber/storer of that energy (spring).
Over the years (literally centuries) many excellent mechanical minds have
tried to create the 'perpetual motion' by moving weights around within a
wheel. As the weights are moved further from, or closer to, the axle of the
wheel they vary the applied torque to the wheel shaft causing the wheel to
rotate to a new centre of balance. Of course the principle that has
prevented the construction of a working wheel based on this system of
radially moving weights is the apparent fact that one can not use the
energy gained from dropping a mass to lift that same mass higher than the
position from which it was dropped.
Attempts at creating the 'magical' permenantly overbalanced wheel have
mainly centred on somehow adding weight to one side of the wheel (as far as
I'm aware), such as moving mass radially out and in from the centre of
rotation. It occurs to me that by allowing a mass to fall, that mass can
not apply it's weight to any structure while it is falling. Bessler stated
that his wheels used a simple system of falling weights. Perhaps Bessler
did not 'add weight' to one side of his wheel but rather 'removed weight'
by allowing a mass to free-fall.
Bill.
At 10:36 15/03/98 -0900, you wrote:
>Bill i am having a hard time seeing where this is going however I will
>try.(last time)to solve your reaction problem
>In your latest description of your model you indicated full absorption
>into the beam(no Bounce)(beam absorbs energy NOT balls)?
>1 If the beam is absorbing the energy and you add this spring trap to
>the beam(presumably rebalancing the beam for the added weight of the
>trap) then the energy recieved by the trap will be transfered to the
>beam but not necessarily at the same rate as the falling ball on the
>other end of the beam.variables are the (rate of absorption of energy of
>spring trap compared to rate of absorbtion of beam)
>2 if you are trying to achieve a balanced beam condition during this
>experiment you would have to match the absorption rate of one end of
>(the beam) with the absorbtion rate of the (spring trap combined with
>absorbtion rate of the beam) at other end.The beam at the spring trap
>end must be less absorbtive than at the other inorder to have work
>performed by the spring trap.
>3 if this is done accuratly and other factors as mentioned in my
>previous e mail are eliminated the beam will remain balanced.
>4 As the Sum kinetic energy of the balls will be absorbed into the beam
>(no Bounce) there will be no reactive forces to deal with.
>
>