Is this perpetual motion?

A gravity motor that works? The following paper describes the development of the device and the rationale behind it. It has yet to be built. Will it run?

Make up your own mind.

Hans von Lieven

G'day all,

Today I want to present what I believe is the road to perpetual motion.

About two weeks ago I heard about a gravity wheel that was supposed to have run in America between 1909 and 1930.

The wheel was built by an American of German extraction who died in 1950 aged 91. By family request his name has not been made public.

He was known to have in his possession a book and a number of documents in German concerning perpetual motion. The whereabouts of these documents are unknown. Some of these documents are rumoured to have come from Bessler himself.

The wheel still exists though the control mechanism is missing. Someone nicknamed it the "Buzzsaw" because the inner wheel resembles a circular saw blade. This is what the recovered artifact looks like.

The description of the wheel, as well as more photographs of it, can be found at:

I recommend you read this article first to give you a clearer understanding of what follows.

I am giving you here a sequential account of my relevant posts in the Bessler Forum which you can also find at: from page 34 onwards.

It shows the development of my ideas from inspiration to my eventual conclusions.

Have fun

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: re: new thoughts


G'day Doc,

I have only yesterday become aware of your wheel. It is a monumental discovery and in my view explains the missing bit of Bessler's system. I think I understand what the old man did and the rationale behind it.

I will share my thoughts on the matter freely, but before I write my thoughts up I would like to clarify a couple of things as they are crucial. Could you please confirm or elaborate on the following points.

1) the wheels fight each other

2) There must be some "slop" in the movement, too accurate a fit renders the device unworkable.

3) It has been observed that the two wheels spin in opposite directions.

Perhaps I am not putting it very well here, but you get the idea.

I applaud your generosity in sharing this with us. Thanks very much.

I don't know how you feel about this but I would like the old man to have a name. Not enough to identify him, perhaps just the Christian name he was known by or even a nickname, if he had one. I might be considered a sentimental fool for asking this, but a man of his calibre and ingenuity should at least have a name and not be thought of as an anonymous brick in a suburban wall. I think we owe him that much.

Greetings from Australia

Hans von Lieven

In a reply post I was told that the old man was known to his friends as Keenie.

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day Doc,

Thank you for your prompt answer. You needn't worry about me, controversy is not foreign to me and I can hold my own :-)

I remember reading in this thread somewhere that there was one part at least where an accurate fit was detrimental and that there had to be some movement. Am I wrong in this?

I hate having to go through all 36 pages of this thread to find the reference, if it is there. As to the counter spinning movement, I know that cannot happen. I do however have an explanation as to why someone would see this if my assumptions about the function of the wheel are right. That is why I asked, I kind of expected someone to remark on that.

Greetings from Kangarooland

BTW. Keenie is lovely. I shall refer to him from now on as "Pop Keenie" and to the wheel as "Pop Keenie's Wheel". I love it. I have a feeling the old man would have liked that too.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day Doc,

I wasn't testing your hard drive, I just wanted confirmation that I had understood it right.

As an explanation; say, you had two wheels running in the same direction, but there was a reciprocating motion between them, say over something like 15 - 20 degrees.

Seeing this running it would appear as though one wheel was running in the opposite direction at certain speeds because of a stroboscopic effect.

A bit like seeing the wheels of a stagecoach in an old western appearing to turn backwards at certain speeds.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: re: new thoughts


G'day Quartz,

I am writing up at the moment my analysis of the device and the rationale behind it. I am just clarifying a few points with Doc.

It will have to be a fairly lengthy paper so please be patient with me, it'll be a few days. There are a number of interesting things about this wheel that to my knowledge no-one has commented upon. Old Pop Keenie definitely knew what he was doing.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day all,

Judging by the amount of E-mail I am receiving it would appear that I have set the cat amongst the pigeons with my statements. So, rather than completing my write-up before publication I will put my ideas forward as I am writing.

It'll be a bit of a cliff hanger between chapters but that's the price I'm afraid.

As some of you know I have been independently transcribing and translating Bessler's handwritten comments in MT and comparing my work with Stewart's.

In contrast to Bessler's published works, MT is of an entirely different character. The manuscript is matter of fact, cold and analytical. Bessler at his best.

Rather than focussing on individual drawings I am looking at that manuscript as a whole. Starting with the simplest concepts Bessler shows in an organised and methodical manner the different approaches that have been taken to perpetual motion over a long period of time. The drawings are presented in groups, each group with a common central theme.

In other words his work is leading somewhere!

It is my contention that Bessler had meant this to be published as a complete treatise on perpetual motion. The notes themselves in my view were never meant to be published in this form. The final plates depicted Bessler's solution. These he destroyed.

It has been my aim to take the general direction of his idea flow project it forward and hopefully arrive at Bessler's secret in this fashion.

Bessler uses two terms that are central to the problem. I have been struggling with how best to interpret them. The terms are "Gewerbe punctum" and "Supperpondio".

Stewart might disagree with me here but after prolonged contemplation I came to the conclusion that "Gewerbe punctum" is an old fashioned way to describe what in modern German is called "Drehpunkt" ( point of rotation or pivot). "Supperpondio" is in modern German called "Schwerpunkt" (literally translated heavy point, meaning centre of gravity).

Now we all know that the objective in an unbalanced wheel is to keep the centre of gravity to the left or right of the point of rotation. This is impossible to do in a closed system. That is why science says perpetual motion is impossible.

What goes up must come down, to paraphrase Newton and he is right!

Bessler knew this. He says somewhere that his system does not violate any laws of nature. Bessler was very much aware of Newton.

At this point it became clear to me that there must be a minimum of two systems battling each other for dominance. That means that they had, at least at times, to be able to act independently of each other. I set about to prove my theory and met eventually with partial success.

In an WM2D simulation I created a pendulum with an internal mechanism that re-distributed the centre of gravity relying on gravity alone. To my surprise the pendulum did a 700 degree turn from a standing start at 1 o'clock!

In other words it did almost two turns before it went haywire. Some of the forces I had unleashed prevented the interior mechanism from re-setting properly and it went apeshit after this.

Thinking I had made a major breakthrough I published the simulation some time back in Stewart's forum.

In spite of the fact that no-one to my knowledge had ever managed to propel a pendulum 360 degrees or more from a standing start the response I received was rather disappointing. Little more than "interesting concept". I guess the "so what?" was politely left out.

I have since tried a number of variations on the theme, each time with the same results. It seemed I had run into yet another dead end.

Three days ago I struck Pop Keenies wheel. I sat down and analysed his design. After some contemplation I saw that he had been thinking very much along the same lines and had come up with a fiendishly clever approach to the problem that left me stunned.

In spirit I saluted him as a kindred spirit with exceptional ability across the time that separates us. Perhaps you understand now why I needed a name to go with the man.

Enough of a lead up let us now have a look at Pop Keenie's wheel

Next Chapter: Preliminary examination of Pop Keenie's wheel.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:45 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day all,

Since you are all getting impatient I have put the whole thing together in a hurry, there should be enough here to show what I am talking about.

Preliminary examination of Pop Keenie's wheel.

When I first saw the wheel I did pretty much what Preston did. I made a crude model, nothing more than drawing the wheel on a sheet of paper and using 5 cent coins as "weights" tried to picture the initial geometry of the device.

It became quite clear after some experimentation that all 12 weights were required. Theoretically it could work on 8 as 4 of the weights never go anywhere. I think they act as a kind of inertial dampener to smooth the system.

The next thing that became clear was that any transmission ratio other than 1:1 was out of the question since the weights on the outer wheel cannot pass the weights on the inner wheel and the system would jam very quickly.

This created a dilemma.

If the transmission was 1:1 why was it there at all? You could just lock the wheels together with the same effect. This puzzled me until I remembered something from my childhood.

I come from a small town (6000 people) in rural Germany. It is mountainous country and the weather is often beastly.

The town had a hall where people could do indoor sports and exercise during bad weather. It was a popular spot.

One group that regularly trained there were trick cyclists. They had small bikes with a 1:1 straight transmission. No ratchet drive, you could ride these kikes backwards and forwards. I noticed that the riders were forever adjusting the tension of the chain. I asked why they did this. One of the riders showed me.

He drew a line on the floor and marked a spot on his tyre. He then put his bicycle on the line that the tyre mark was exactly above it. He mounted the bike and stood there on the pedals keeping his balance with his hands in the air. The bike did not move, only the rider did. He said the slack in the chain enabled him to keep his balance and move a little without it affecting the bike. He also said if there was too much slack it was no good either since it robbed him of complete control.

This had to be it!

The transmission in Pop Keenies wheel is simply there to restrict the relative movement between the wheels.

That still does not get us anywhere though.

Let us look at what happens when the weights transfer. In a CCW rotating system the weights transfer roughly at 11 o'clock and 5 o'clock simultaneously. (Remember Bessler saying that the weights operated in pairs?)

As the weights transfer the outer wheel gets a violent push in one direction and the inner wheel gets the same in the opposite direction. Since at this point the systems are independent they will move in opposite directions until the slack runs out at which point the forces will clash and cancel each other out. We are back to square one.

Well in Pop's wheel not quite.

Because it is here in that tiny interval over the space of perhaps 20 degrees where he gets cagey. Remember at this point the systems are independent!

Through some sort of lever system he uses the push of the inner wheel to impart extra energy to the outer wheel so when the systems catch up there is less opposing force, since he has spent some of it, and more propelling force, since that is where it went.

A little like what Bedini is trying when he feeds spikes of back EMF into his motor.

It is my opinion that this bit extra makes all the difference and propels the system until the next weight gets into play starting the cycle afresh.

In the next chapter I will get into this in more detail and furnish some drawings, but for now you have it here in a nutshell.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

Bessler's Secret.

This is going to be a controversial essay, so get your flame throwers ready.

Bessler claimed that he had discovered what he calls his "motus perpetualis" which is commonly translated as perpetual motion. In the context of what Bessler is saying I would translate this as "principle of perpetual motion".

Purists will balk at this, but then again, Medieval and Renaissance Latin is not exactly known for purity of language.

So what is this principle of perpetual motion that Bessler claims to have found and just how did he discover it?

What now follows is highly speculative, though plausible and logical.

It is my contention that Bessler discovered his "motus perpetualis" by observation!

We know that at some stage in his life Bessler was a soldier. I believe he discovered his principle by watching the recoil of a gun.

We also know that Bessler was the recipient of an extraordinary education, which at the time was considered second to none.

He was tutored by Christian Weise (1642-1708). Weise was an outstanding intellect in his time. His work on science, education and literature is considered of such importance that his collected works (25 volumes !) were re-published as recently as 1971!

He is almost unknown outside Germany.

Bessler's knowledge of physics, mathematics and chemistry would have been state of the art.

Bessler was aware of two fundamental tenets of physics:

1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only channelled.

2) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[Some might argue here that the laws of conservation of energy were not formalised until about 100 years later by Helmholtz (1821-1894). This is correct, though the basic principles of conservation of energy were understood and accepted in Bessler's time.]

Watching the recoil of a gun Bessler wondered if some of that opposing energy flow might not be diverted to contribute to movement. If that was possible here lay perpetual motion.

It is perhaps a sad comment on humanity that the only instance where this phenomenon is routinely exploited is in automatic and semi-automatic weapons where part of that energy is used to eject the spent cartridge, put another one in the breach and cock the firing mechanism.

Bessler had other ideas.

His thinking would have gone something like this:

Using the example of a gun, let us substitute the powder charge with a compressed spring, like in figure1.

Upon pulling the trigger the energy in the compressed spring gets released and the ball is ejected with force. We know this can be done.

Now we go one step further. We build a wheel that revolves around a shaft and attach a single vane to the wheel. We put our toy gun in position so that when the ball gets ejected it hits the vane and the wheel rotates., like in figure 2.

We know that the energy imparted to the wheel is not enough to re-cock the spring and put the ball back to the starting position. Because of losses in the system this is not possible. There is nothing new here.

But it does not miss the repeat cycle by much. A little more energy and you could do it. But that little bit of energy required is not there. In an ideal system without losses caused by friction, gravity etc, so science tells us, it is theoretically possible to have perpetual movement but you could not extract any energy from it.

But is this true?

Let us now consider the following scenario. The same arrangement, but this time we mount our toy cannon on a second wheel that is also capable of spinning. Like in figure 3.

When we now fire the gun both wheels spin in opposite directions with equal velocity. One wheel is driven by the impact, the other by recoil. We have just doubled our available energy output without further expenditure. More than enough combined energy to re-set the system and do some work!

So the energy is there!!!!!

The trick is to design a mechanism that takes advantage of the phenomenon. Bessler achieved just this.

This is all there is to Bessler's secret. It is really quite simple.

He told us so!

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:14 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

Thanks for your comments Fletcher, Bill and Walter,

I was in the armed forces once. I have seen guns in action. It is true that in gas re-loaders a small part of the expanding gas is diverted before the bullet leaves the muzzle. You still get massive kick back though and that does not come from the robbed gas. Similarly with cannons, have you ever seen how they jump in their mounts when they are fired?

Besides, according to Newton the energy is there. Has to be there, otherwise there could not be an equal and opposite reaction.

The question whether this energy can be tapped is perhaps still open.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day all,

Putting the Recoil Effect to use.

I know it must be frustrating and at times confusing to follow my train of thought as I struggle to come to grips with the new insights I believe I have gained, courtesy of that magnificent old man Pop Keenie.

Pop says that the wheels have to fight each other.

That means both wheels must be allowed at times to act independently.

It also means that a straight transmission of whatever ratio is out of the question. There must be a degree of movement between the wheels.

Now we know that if we let the wheels act independently without interference that these "punches" are of equal and opposing ferocity. There is no gain here!

What follows logically from this is that we must limit the ability of one of the wheels to trade punches as it were, so that the other wheel can gain dominance. In other words we have to handicap one of the wheels.

The following design is one such approach. It is not what Pop Keenie did, though it is in the same spirit. The mechanism relies on the "recoil effect".

The approach taken here is not my preferred option but it does illustrate in a simple and straightforward manner what I am talking about.

It is not an engineering design for a device. For instance, one would never design a ratchet drive in this way, but the way I have depicted it here shows clearly what its function is. Bearing this in mind let us now have a look at it.

Figure A shows the wheel at the point where the weights transfer. (I have left the weights out of the drawing because this is not what I am trying to show, I merely want to show the relative movement between the wheels). At this point both wheels are synchronous and move in the overall direction of travel.

Upon transfer of the weights the outer wheel receives an imbalance in favour of the direction of travel. Simultaneously the inner wheel receives an equal imbalance in the opposite direction. This is the recoil effect I have been talking about.

The inner wheel now goes retrograde.

This retrograde motion engages the ratchet.

The inner wheel now has to lift the weighted lever.

Since both systems are acting on their own, because of the play allowed by the transmission, it is able to do so. It keeps doing this until the play runs out. See Figure B.

The amount of allowable play is critical and needs yet to be determined.

Assuming that the ratio between the weighted lever and the total retrograde force is say 90:100 in favour of the inner wheel the amount of resistance to the forward motion of the outer wheel is now only 10% of what it would have been otherwise.

As the wheels synchronise again the weighted lever starts to contribute to the overall forward motion. We have turned some of the antagonistic energy flow into a contributing force until it hits the stop, disengaging the ratchet.

At this moment the full retrograde force hits again.

There is now a also a discrepancy in the spacing of the slots between wheels.

It would seem necessary to bring the new weights into play before or shortly after impact to start the cycle afresh.

At the point of writing I am still having difficulty in reconciling this new element in the equation with the overall geometry of the wheel using 12 weights.

It seems to work better with 8.

But then again, this is what Bessler said. Isn't it?

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day all,

Here is the next instalment on the progress of my ongoing research.

On Instability.

The more I study the geometry of Pop Keenie's wheel The more I am in awe of how fiendishly clever the design is.

There is yet another element that has to be brought into the equation.

In any imbalanced wheel there are two points of equilibrium, one of which is stable, the other one is not. The system seeks the stable point of equilibrium; it has to move in order to do so. This is what we call propulsion.

Let me show you what I mean:

In this illustration we see two wheels. They are identical. Both wheels have two weights attached to them causing the imbalance. Wheel A is in a stable equilibrium.

The gravitational pull is to the left and to the right of the point of rotation in equal proportions. The wheel is at rest and stable. Wheel B is also at rest but it is unstable. Here we have the same gravitational pull, the forces balance each other out.

It is easy to see that the slightest amount of push will imbalance the unstable position whereas a disproportionately larger force is required to cause an imbalance in the stable position.

Since we are trying to disturb the equilibrium with as small a force as possible it is easy to see where we must hook in.

But how do you do this and where is the benefit?

I leave you to ponder this one for a bit while I am continuing with my experiments.

In spite of its seeming simplicity there are complex forces at work in Pop Keenie's wheel which need to be brought into delicate balance. It is a tight-walk with many pitfalls which have to be overcome one by one.

After many experiments I have now resolved the overall geometry of the wheel.

At the risk of having overlooked something I am now making the following statements which I believe to be true.

The wheel is a perpetual motion machine of the first order, something which science says is impossible! I understand the physics behind it, the wheel works, must work in fact. It is self starting from ANY position. There is no violation of any laws of physics. The wheel produces work, albeit very little in the present (Pop Keenie's) configuration. It is possible by using the same principles to build a wheel with many times the power. The only problem that remains is the configuration of the control mechanism. There are a number of ways to do this. The trick is to come up with a design that is precise, reliable and capable of receiving a lot of punishment without affecting the accuracy. This is what I am working on at present.

As the enormity of what I have discovered is starting to hit home I find myself in a quandary.

Should I publish my findings now as things stand, or do I wait until I have built it, which will be some time considering my available resources at present. Perhaps some of you might offer some suggestions here.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: re: new thoughts

Oops Gentlemen,

It would appear I spoke a little too soon.

As a result of my latest experiments a flaw has shown up in my design that yet needs to be resolved. I don't believe at this stage that the flaw is fatal, but you never know.

There are very complex forces at work here and things aren't always what they seem. But such is the nature of development work. I'll keep you posted on my progress. The control mechanism is a real beast.

Sorry guys, but it's not as cut and dried as I thought. :-( ........ At least I am honest. :-)

Wish me luck

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day Gentlemen,

Perhaps not as bad as I first thought.

It is difficult at times to balance enthusiasm with level headedness. Nevertheless I seem to be making progress again.

To give you an idea of what I am struggling with.

From what I have determined so far there must be three forces in play for the wheel to work. (Incidentally, Keely talks about this.)

These three systems must be at times allowed to act independently. During that time a re-configuration occurs that alters the overall geometry of the wheel. ie. the relationship of the three systems to each other.

This has to occur in such a fashion that the remaining forward momentum, after the three systems are locked together again, is sufficient to bring the next set of weights into play, adding to the forward momentum and keeping the wheel in motion.

One of the problems is that there is no mathematical model available that is capable of describing the system as a whole.

Sure, each independent system by itself can be calculated.

But when it comes to the overall picture mathematics as I know it is of little use.

I mean, how do you set up an equation that, when resolved, winds up with more on one side than the other without breaking every rule in the book and rendering the result meaningless?

And yet this is precisely what we are after in practice.

I am still confident that I am on the right track. The reason why I am documenting my efforts, win lose or draw, is that if anything should happen to me there will be others that are at least aware of how I am approaching the problem and hopefully learn something useful in the process.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day all,

Sometimes a major snag in the system is a blessing in disguise.

You see, in my design I stuck with Pop Keenie's original configuration. The problem with this is that Pop, when he had his wheel cast, made a mistake which caused him, and me, no end of trouble.

I think that Pop in his earlier models experimented with eight weights. He then sought to make the design more powerful and added another four weights making it a total of twelve. For it to work he needed 16 slots on the inner wheel and 8 on the outer. This works fine - on paper. In practice it doesn't, for a number of reasons.

He had to return to his eight weights to get the wheel going. This gave him eight slots in the inner wheel that had no purpose. Rather than having a new inner wheel cast he decided to use every second slot, so did I. That is when he, and I, got into strife.

Pop says that you must stop thinking of a circle as 360 degrees. It is a bit of an enigmatic way of putting it, but he is right. Pop's circle is 337.5 degrees (for a wheel with 8 weights). This gives us a "Black Hole" of 22.5 degrees. This black hole must more or less remain in the same spot. It is an essential part of the system, go without it and it does not work. This is, in a sense, where all the action occurs.

In a wheel with eight weights, equally spaced, the distance between weights is 45 degrees. His inner wheel however had sixteen slots, which are 22.5 degrees apart. It is these unused slots that interfere with the black hole. Weights drop into slots where they are not supposed to go. Pop got his wheel running by using an elaborate system of springs and levers, even a "hammer" to force the weights into their correct spaces. This cost him energy and made the wheel unruly. I can see why people said the house shook when his wheel ran. Bessler had no such problem, or we would have heard about it.

The elimination of the superfluous slots gives a much smoother action and the extra mechanisms are not required anymore.

I am back on track, all my previous statements regarding the functioning of the wheel stand.

I will meet with Damian on Sunday and show him what I have. All the drawings and the animation I was working on will now have to be revised. I hope I will have it finished by then.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: re: new thoughts

Ralph said:

I stick to my original concept of the outside wheel with the additional leverage radius to be the driving wheel. It is obvious what the blank 22.5 degrees can accomplish, which brings me back to my very first hypothesis. The lessor number of weights and spacing allows the inner wheel to achieve an almost balanced state, as one weight leaves another is added.

G'day Ralph.

I totally agree with the above statement You are also correct in stating it is a gearing problem. Say, you allow the small wheel to go retrograde against the big wheel by 22.5 degrees and against the datum line 11.5 degrees and store that energy in for instance a spring. Getting the 11.25 degrees back is therefor not a problem the other 11.5 degrees cost. The problem is the distance between the wheels has to be restored. There is enough power to do it with since the new weights have come into play. but the small wheel has to move faster. in other words when the big wheel moves 45 degrees the small one must move 67.5 degrees. Or, while the large wheel travels 4 segments the small one must travel 6. There must be some clutch and gear system. Actually you could get a more favourable equation by adjusting the counterweight but that is not something you can forecast. I am working on worst case scenario.

It appears to me that the outer wheel must be the driver, I cannot see it working any other way.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: re: new thoughts

Ralph wrote:

As for the gearing problem, I have often thought of a geared up mechanism that would catch and speed up the inner not unlike a clock escapement catching the inner wheel for so many degrees and then releasing. Quote: while the large wheel travels 4 segments the small one must travel 6. There must be some clutch and gear system. And here lies the crutch of the problem that requires a clutch with some type of make and break system, you cannot run the outer at four gullets with the inner running six without an eventual collision as the weights cannot pass one another under the present gullet design. It reminds me of John Collins AP where Bessler speaks of the dog reaching out to the end of his chain. Ralph

G'day Ralph,

To the first of your statements above, you are absolutely correct.

The second statement is not on the mark. There is a way to accommodate reciprocal and geared movements without the weights clashing.

I am sorry in appearing as though I am stringing you along, nothing could be further from the truth.

Truth is that I am preparing a set of drawings that describes the wheel as I see it and create an animation that shows the movement between the system and the interaction. This is a massive job.

As there are only 24 hours in the day......... :-)

The second hurdle I have is that I see two solutions to the problem, one requiring gearing, the other one only a clutch.

Sometimes I have difficulty in keeping the two systems apart. This I believe is causing some confusion as I seem to be making contradictory statements at times. I apologise for this.

I am going as fast as I can and hopefully by next week I'll be able to present at least one of my systems in detail.

Hans von Lieven.

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject:

DrWhat wrote:

There were some comments by eyewitnesses that when a load was placed "on" a Bessler wheel that it did not appear to slow down. Other comments that it did. This could be due to a leverage effect of a narrow axle pulling a load. In my mind this related to the fact that as the wheel was slowed down, it was being released to some extent from the detrimental CF forces that were limiting the wheel's speed. This gave the wheel more power directed towards pulling the load (rather than fighting CF), so the slowdown of the lift was less than expected.

G'day Damian and all,

The trouble with centrifugal forces (centripetal forces for the purist) is that as the speed increases the centrifugal forces grow exponentially. Since the torque remains the same more and more energy has to be expended to keep the CF under control, which bites into the available energy resource.

It would follow from there that in a gravity wheel (assuming such a thing can be built) the speed has to be kept low to keep the CF within acceptable limits. The device must be built for torque, not for speed.

The above observations describe this phenomenon, therefore they should be regarded as authentic. Now, obviously as you increase the load you will initially make more torque available, to a point. If you then continue adding load it will slow down the device. So both observations are correct.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day Gentlemen,

I have just finished putting the final touches on my drawings and the animation is done. Now all I need to do is to write up the action of the wheel and I will be ready to present my ideas. This is the system that requires gearing. I am still working on the other version.

In a few hours I will be meeting Damian (Dr-What) and discuss the concept with him.

I am prepared to work with anyone on this, as long as I am kept out of the pissing competitions. I am an engineer, not a politician. :-)

What I will be presenting is the concept in the way a physicist might see it. There are still a number of engineering issues to be resolved, so don't expect a finished set of engineering drawings from which you can build.

Other than that everything is right on track.

Hans von Lieven

Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day all,

Having spent a pleasant afternoon with Damian (Dr-What) and showing him my work in regard to Pop Keenie's wheel I am now working furiously to complete my presentation. Barring major annoyances I should get it finished sometime today.

Not bad going actually since I only heard about Pop's wheel on the 24th August 2008 :-)

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day all,

I am publishing this paper under copyright. Feel free to use the information to build any device you wish. When it comes to commercial exploitation I reserve whatever rights are given to my by law.

The Road to Perpetual Motion.

Copyright Hans von Lieven 2008

The drawing shows the wheel at a time when the clutch is about to be disengaged from the 1.5 : 1 transmission (not shown for the sake of clarity) making the two wheels independent of each other.

Since the wheel will self start in any position there is no starting position as such. Nevertheless, this position is of importance. It shows the geometry that has to be restored every time the wheel travels 45 degrees. Let us call it the reference position.

So what is so special about the reference position?

The inner wheel is offset to the outer wheel by 22.5 degrees, (Figure 1) giving us a concentration of weights in roughly the 9 o'clock position and a "black hole" in roughly the 4 o'clock position.

This creates an imbalance in the wheel in favour of the direction of travel.

If we were to lock the wheels together and let them go it would move forwards until it finds its stable point of equilibrium (Figure 2) go a little further, then stop and reverse direction. Then it would go backwards and forwards for a while until eventually coming to a standstill. In relation to the reference position this gives us a forward motion under diminishing torque of some 50 degrees. This is the total amount of energy we have to play with. It is clearly insufficient to induce rotation.

What we now need to do is to introduce additional energy into the system to keep going.

But from where?

Here is where the separation of the wheels come into play.

When we consider the two wheels as independent systems a different picture emerges.

The outer wheel shows a clear bias in favour of the direction of travel. The inner wheel is biased also, but in the opposite direction.. In other words it starts spinning backwards. If we allow the inner wheel to move unchecked this energy is lost to the system.

What is now required is to store that energy somehow and feed it back into the system on a reverse vector when the time comes.

In this demonstration this is achieved with a counter weight.

Let me say here that a counterweight is not a good solution. A spring would be much better. The reason why I am using a counter weight is that it illustrates the forces at play much clearer than a spring arrangement would.

The disadvantage of a counter weight is that we can only allow it to store part of the retrograde energy since we must maintain movement in the opposite direction. A spring however could absorb and store all the available energy, minus friction losses of course.

The inner wheel is allowed to go backwards for 11.5 degrees. During that time the outer wheel moves forwards unimpeded by the same amount, gathering momentum.

The wheels must meet and lock in a position that enables the transfer of the weights.

At this point the "black hole has disappeared, leaving the wheels in synch.

This must be reset.

In other words the inner wheel must move faster than the outer wheel until the original relationship is restored. It requires gearing of some sort.

Most of the energy required to do so is still available to the system, partially stored in the weighted lever and partially in the increased momentum of the outer wheel. We must of course pay for the friction losses.

But what have we gained, if anything?

We have gained the torque differential between the two weights that have just transferred.

Since the transfer of the weights occurs some 30 degrees above the reference position of the top weight we have also gained 30 degrees of travel in favour of forward motion in the most advantageous spot there is.

This is more than enough to pay for the losses we have incurred and leaves something over to do work.

And this Gentlemen, unless I am severely mistaken, is the road to perpetual motion.

The rest is simply an engineering challenge.

See for yourself in the animation.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day Gentlemen,

Whilst I believe that the principles of the device as shown are sound, translating this into a working machine is quite another matter.

There are some formidable engineering problems that have to be overcome before it can function as intended.

To illustrate what I mean let me point out three areas of major concern.

1) The weight in the 10 o'clock position of the inner wheel is a problem.

As you can see at this point the transfer gradient is very steep. Exacerbated by centrifugal forces and aided by gravity the weight will slam forward lodging itself against the outer wheel jamming the action. It must be somehow prevented from doing this.

2) The inner wheel in order to restore the black hole must move at 1.5 times the speed of the outer wheel for a while. During this time it gathers a lot of momentum which is detrimental to the necessary retrograde motion as LustInBlack has correctly pointed out. This energy has to be captured and fed back into the system (again using the "recoil effect").

3) Whereas the centrifugal forces aid the transfer of the weights as far as the top weight is concerned they are to our detriment when transferring the weight from the outer to the inner wheel in the bottom position.

As I said earlier, this can be partially overcome by keeping the operating speed low. If that is enough only experiment will show. My guess is that it is not. The transfers have to happen quite quickly and I have a feeling this might require a little bit of help along the way

In an earlier post I mentioned that the control mechanism is a beast.

To design a simple, rugged, reliable and precise control device that can meet all the necessary criteria is difficult, though in my view not impossible.

This is what I am working on at present.

Hope this helps

Hans von Lieven