Yes. Well “most’ have that attitude. Everyone that relies on these laws for whatever reason will not easily challenge them. Especially when it comes to the perpetual motion subject. It is probably why there havn’t been advances made in
such machines for so long. Most people think its impossible so they don’t have the incentive to disprove the concept.

It’s the attitude of most intellectuals that the law of thermodynamics can’t be broken so don’t even bother trying to create a perpetual motion machine!

As an intellectual (and a scientist), my attitude is you certainly should try, I just don’t expect you to succeed. Like any scientific theory or law, thermodynamics is only as strong as the evidence supporting it; one “ugly fact” can shoot it down in a heartbeat.

But (here it comes), to have circumvented the laws of thermodynamics is an extraordinary claim, as such it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.

An inventor by the name of Bessler created a wheel in the 18th century which was powered by weights & gravity. It was very well tested & documented. This machine apparantly worked and it could do work. References can be found on the web. Just google “Bessler wheel”. Although his trade secret went with him to his grave, the amount of people who witnessed and verified the machine cannot be dismissed.

This is a nice example of non-extraordinary evidence. A perpetual motion machine"powered by weights and gravity” whose secrets are now lost. You have no evidence how Bessler’s wheel was powered, it could have been clockwork, or a heat engine, or a well-fed ferret in a wheel. Bessler is an interesting piece of historical arcana, but it no more proves perpetual motion is possible than it proves it isn’t.

What I am saying is that If you think & believe that something is impossible then.. IT IS! But most and nearly all laws of motion, thermodynamics have been derived by experimentation, trials, and THEORY!

And as such they are tested again, and again, and again. Your emphasis on theory implies this is a bad thing, when in fact it is the opposite. A law describes, a theory explains. Hence theories are much richer areas of science, and more vulnerable. Theories need to be complete (internally, no “at this point a miracle occurs” in the workings), consistent and accessible (at least to others in the field). That way the assumptions can be challenged, the logic picked apart and the conclusions argued over. Anything a theory should explain but doesn’t is potentially fatal to it. Anything a law predicts which isn’t is definitely fatal to it.

Open your mind to the possibilities and challenge the norm. This is the only way new theories & laws can be explored. Don’t say it’s impossible. Say it could be. You just have to find the right methods!

Good science does this. The idea of a scientific orthodoxy shutting down heresies is an impossible myth. There are just too many scientists willing to “give it a go” for even the most heretical idea to be silenced (ESP is a case in point). Anyone who recreated Bessler’s wheel would have scientists queuing round the block to explain why it’s (a) a hoax or (b) a mistake. And if they can’t, there’s a Nobel prize waiting for the first one to explain how it works.

A quick look at the history of cold fusion (try wikipedia) demonstrates this. Despite numerous failed attempts to create (or replicate) fusion in Fleischmann/Pons style apparatus, and the widespread view that this approach is unlikely to amount to squat, there are still several active teams of experimenters. Most scientists would just shrug at this and think, “It’s their time and money. Fair does to ‘em!”

David B. As an intellectual (and a scientist), I applaud your belief that you should try! It’s the, “I just don

“No fraud was ever detected.”

That doesn’t mean there wasn’t any. The laws of physics were not as well understood in the 1700s as they are today, especially by laypersons who were wrapped up in astrology, ghosts, bloodletting and such. If the machine in your graphic really is a perpetual motion device, it should be easy to duplicate today. The fact that no one has makes me think it is a fraud. That does not mean Bessler did it diliberately, he could have been fooling himself.

Years ago, I worked in an electronics R&D lab. A person came in who claimed to have invented a transformer that output more power than was put it. When measuring voltage and current between input and output, he showed us, with our own instruments, the apparent gain in power. However, he seemed to be unaware of the basic fact that current and voltage in a coil (transformer windings) are not in phase. A co-worker corrected his mistake and demonstrated conclusively that there was no power gain. Just goes to show you, some of the known “laws” should be respected and understood before you try to rewrite them.

Captain Al.. He could have been fooling himself and others, but to have the contraption independantly locked up and sealed to “prove” that he was a fraud and then being made to run for 2 months without any sign of stopping must carry some weight! The graphic was taken from the Bessler site as someones speculation. I don’t know if it has been built or tested! It’s just someones thought process ticking away! It actually looks rather feasible as it uses the unbalanced wheel principle and the springing effect of a hammer to exert force.. I havn’t tried this setup. But I will in the near future! I may perhaps understand more about the physics involved when I see it in action! If it fails, then I try to understand where and why it failed and try to improve on it! It’s just back to basics.

I am in complete aggreement about the known “laws” being respected & understood before trying to rewrite them! I am just saying that there are ways to extract energy through areas which are not given enough importance! One of them is Gravity, and the effect of levers. Then there are gyroscopic and centrifugal forces. Physics is such a large area to experiment in that I truly believe that most researches get caught up in the theoretical parts before even trying with “Trial & Error”. To me, this is a hobby. I am interested in this area because I like to try… and fail! But maybe, just maybe I might succeed! People used to say that it was impossible to fly with a contraption that was so much heavier than air. The Wrights showed them the way!

SeaWasp,
I don’t want to discourage you or anyone from experimenting but if there ever was anything that could be labled impossible, it’s got to be perpetual motion. True, many things deemed impossible were later accomplished but it’s not like no one has ever tried this. There are hundreds of years of research behind that statement. It was the same way with alchemy. Eventually it was learned gold was an element and could not be made from other substances. As far as I know, no one is doing that anymore because virtually everyone agrees it is “impossible”.

But if perpetual motion is your thing, then go for it. To save time you can probably forget about Bessler. His alleged success was surely a myth. It is more likely his work was glorified by later researchers trying to justify their own efforts. I believe this based on your own statements:

“Although his trade secret went with him to his grave…”

Didn’t Bessler keep records? Why would he not publish his data?

”... the amount of people who witnessed and verified the machine cannot be dismissed.”

If so many people witnessed and verified the machine, they must know how it was built. Why didn’t any of them publish their observations?

“The wheel was expertly examined, tested and pronounced without fraud or trickery.”

Didn’t those “experts” take notes? How could they “pronounce [it] without fraud or trickery” if they didn’t know how it worked? Did they all take the secret to the grave as well?

Best of luck with it. Please let us know how the experiments go.

Thanks for your well wishes Captain Al! I will let you and others know how I go in my experiments!  I am currently in the process of building a new machine after having designed it. I am relatively new to this area and I am constantly reading up on the failures of such contraptions and of why they failed! I am trying to think outside the square on this one though as thinking within it, will label my attempts as failures! And if they do, which they probably will, I will try to analyze why? Trial & Error! No Guts, No Glory!

I read an interesting piece on an English inventor by the name of Maurice Ward and his experiences with trying to get some acknowledgment with his invention.

You can view it here;

http://www.alternativescience.com/flame-proof.htm

It goes a long way into the problems faced by many backyard inventors etc!

Oh.. And just to answer some of your questions on Bessler,

Didn

SeaWasp - 12 September 2005 03:18 AM

There were no Patent Laws available in the 1700’s. Bessler wanted about 20,000 English Pounds back then to reveal the inner workings of his machine.

Patent laws have existed since the 15th century. The first English patent was granted in 1449 on a new method of making stained glass (by Henry VI).

If there were no patents in the 1700s, why would anyone pay Bessler 20,000 pounds? They would have just as much trouble protecting their investment as Bessler had protecting his idea.

It’s classic shysterism.  Had the money been paid, you can bet that Bessler would have disappeared with it, and probably set up shop in another country to do it all over again.  I’m not saying that I know for a fact that he was a fraud, but it seems very likely.

P.S. - Any device which makes use of gravity(?!?) or magnetism to operate is not a perpetual motion device.  Such a device is supposed to generate enough energy to keep itself operational indefinitely.  Stealing energy from another source isn’t perpetual.  And regarding gravity, you can only extract energy from an object that has been put into it first.  It requires at least an equal amount of energy to raise an object against gravity as it does to drop it.  A device built using gravity (a favorite) will always fail due to friction.  Unless, of course, you plan on rewriting the laws of physics.  Please make sure that your new laws jive with everybody else’s new laws.  We wouldn’t want a conflict to arise between your physics and Lifewave’s and Angel Light’s and Q-Ray’s and DNA Activation’s and thousands of other cranks out there.

Charybdis - 12 September 2005 02:33 PM

P.S. - Any device which makes use of gravity(?!?) or magnetism to operate is not a perpetual motion device.  Such a device is supposed to generate enough energy to keep itself operational indefinitely.  Stealing energy from another source isn’t perpetual.

But as you, yourself say…

And regarding gravity, you can only extract energy from an object that has been put into it first.

Gravity is a force, not an energy. Assume (for argument’s sake) this particular variation of the overbalancing wheel works as advertised. The wheel, being overbalanced, turns in one direction gravitational potential energy (GPE) of the weights on one side of the wheel is converted into kinetic energy (KE) as the wheel accelerates. By an ingenious arrangement of springs and chewing gum, as the wheel continues to turn (because it is perpetually unbalanced) and the weight is restored to it’s starting position through the application of less work than the energy it released.

A real, honest to goodness, perpetual motion engine “powered” by gravity in fact steals energy only from itself. It’s principle of operation is that it can restore a weight to its maximal GPE position using less energy than that weight released in its descent. This is an over-unity, or type-1, perpetual motion design.