The idea with the rolling cylinder weights transferring their spin momentum
to the wheel was posted by David Cowlishaw (Mr. GIT) some time ago. This
design has not and IMO will not work. David believes (or at least he did at
the time) that a rolling mass, under the influence of gravity, gains more
momentum energy in it's spin than can be accounted for. This is not correct
- the energy gained by a falling/rolling mass is the sum of it's resultant
forward and spin energy. If this were not so, our problem would be ever so
simple.
Our available Bessler data indicates that Bessler used cylindrical weights.
IMO, there's one main reason why Bessler went to the trouble of fabricating
cylindrical weights (as opposed to a brick) and that is if they were
designed to roll during at least part of their movement. After exploring
many wheel designs based on 'simple' conservative mechanics, all results
support the conventional position that gravity can not be harnessed to
perform work in a closed system. Almost 300 years of Bessler replication
attempts also support this. Yet the Bessler data is compelling.
Bessler stated that his weights worked in pairs and that they "gain force
from their own movement". He also stated that with the slip of a single
word, he could betray his secret. Bessler never clearly stated the nature
of the movement of his weights, in fact he used an ambiguous word to
describe their movement. I believe the word that Bessler feared could
"betray his wondrous achievement" is the word that describes the movement
of his weights.
With extensive exploration of conventional conservative solutions to this
problem, I feel certain that Bessler must have resorted to some 'magicians
trick' (not fraud) to solve his problem. The conventional standpoint is
that you can not use the energy gained by a weight, falling under the
influence of gravity, to lift that same weight higher than it's original
position - and therefore Bessler was/is deemed a fraud. The data suggests
that this was in fact what Bessler was claiming with his 'perpetual
motion'. I believe he allowed his detractors to go on believing this, while
his wheel was in fact not functioning as they thought. I'd have to say that
from my experience you can not use a weight's gravitation drop energy to
lift it higher than it's original position - we find nothing in the world
around us to suggest otherwise. Therefore this was probably not how Bessler
solved his problem. How can conservative mechanical thinking result in a
non-conservative solution? Bessler's wheels were not conservative
mechanical devices, even with all the frictional loses his wheels had
energy to spare to drive a load while self running. Probably (definately)
not the result of a conservative mechanical solution.
IMO, no one has come up with the Bessler solution simply because everyone
has been fooled (by the data) into believing that Bessler found a way of
using gravity to lift his weights. He may have used gravity as the source
of his wheel torque, but I think a real solution may require a completely
different lateral approach to the movement of the weights. Any ideas?
Regards, Bill.
At 17:53 12/09/98 -3, Marcelo Puhl wrote:
>Any new ideas about it ?
>
>Maybe Bessler used heavy cilinders that, when rolling down and stopping at
the
>edge of his wheel, transfer its rotational momentum to the wheel rotation ...
>
>Regards.
>
>
>---
>Marcelo Puhl
>mark@plug-in.com.br