Thursday, 30 April 2009

A little further around the corner...

I finished my latest prototype wheel yesterday and it still didn't move continuously. But this is where the advantage of building each model wins over simulation. When I build the first mechanism I always fit it to the wheel and then check it out for timing and range of movement. Once it all looks perfect, I assume it will work, but in this instance it wasn't until all the mechanisms were fitted that I realised that the additional ones had the effect of retarding the timing of the movements of each mechanism.

Actually seeing this in action enabled me to understand why it was still not moving and I thought of a minor alteration to make which was, if I say so myself, pretty dammed ingenious! This variation also explained something that had still got me puzzled over something Bessler revealed in one of his encoded clues. So it's back to the workshop for a couple more days. There is no way a simulation would have thrown up this solution so I shall stick to making my wheels by hand.

JC

Monday, 27 April 2009

Success around the corner?

This week I hope to finish my latest version of Bessler's wheel. This is the most confident I have been to date, at this stage.

Usually I am quite calm, or even sceptical at the prospect of discovering that my design works because, as I'm making it, I don't get the right 'gut' feeling about it, but this time....

Confidence is high but we'll see. I have been close many, many times before.

I'll post something in a few days about what happened - or didn't.

JC

Thursday, 23 April 2009

Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?

It seems to me that recently, in many forums, Bessler's wheel is being referred to as a perpetual motion machine (PMM or PM machine) more often than it used to be. I think that this is a mistake because using such names brings with it a lot of subjective cultural and emotive colouration in addition to the explicit meaning of term. The term 'perpetual motion' is often used in a perjoritive way in referring to the subject and those who support Bessler's claims are leaving themselves open to even more ridicule than we already suffer if they continue to use the term when, in my opinion, it is inaccurate, and should be replaced by some other term which describes it more succinctly. Perpetual Motion machines are defined as ones which don't have access to any external source of energy. They are isolated systems relying on their own intrinsic energy and are wholly independent of any other object, action or consequence. Such machines violate the law of conservation of energy.

Bessler's wheel relied on gravity for its energy. Now you can argue that gravity cannot be the sole source of energy for the wheel, but without it, it would not turn. Gravity pervades our world; it permeates all matter in and on the earth and the space around us, so it is in effect both internal and external to any machine which relies on it to work. As such it is not a perpetual motion machine, and not an isolated system,and it does not therefore, break the law of conservation of energy. It is, rather, a gravity wheel, or a gravity engine in the way that a petrol engine is called that because it runs on petrol; or a gravity mill in the same way that a windmill is referred to, thus, because it is driven by the wind.

Old examples of such machines are a windmill which drives a fan which pumps air at the windmill causing it to turn. A modern example would include a battery which drives an electricity generator which charges the battery. Both impossible because they derive no extra energy from outside their own little worlds and are thus isolated systems.

Bessler's wheel did, according to the inventor, use gravity to turn it, so it was a gravity wheel, regardless of whether you think it needed an additional source of energy to complete the cycle. So I must ask those who discuss such matters to please use a term other than PM when describing Bessler's wheel or we shall never get the serious attention of the scientific community we seek.

JC

Monday, 20 April 2009

To simulate or fabricate?

I answered an email recently concerning my belief that actually making models is preferable to using simulation software and more likely to end in success, and I think I should enlarge on it here.

When I said in an earlier blog, that this type of experimentation couldn't be done with any kind of modeling program, what I meant was that, yes, you can test an existing design with simulation software, but in the design process, you can't really rely on it to the exclusion of hands-on design. You may miss some simple alternative design or a small modification to the existing one that you can see in front of you when you have the actual components in your hands. When you can physically move a mechanism by hand and study its range of movement you may find that it becomes necessary to alter something to enable it to comply with your design. You may start the design on paper or in paint on the computer but at some stage it is better if you make the mechanism and see it in action.

Having said that, if I had the expertise and a sufficiently powerful computer to use a simulation programs, I'm sure I might decide to test out a particular design and see if it worked. But I don't so I must build it to see if it works and of course if I found that it did work in simulation then I'd have to build it then anyway. But I would still prefer to build it and study it in action.

One of the things that testing an actual physical mechanism shows is what I call 'tight spots' where at some point in its range of movement, usually at an extremity, the mechanism stiffens and becomes bound. This usually requires some loosening but that can have a negative effect in the part of the range where it isn't tight This looseness can cause lateral sway which may cause overlapping parts of the mechanism to interfere with the full range of movement, but in my experience this can be reduced to an acceptable level with the inclusion of spring washers or other springs. This kind of problem will not show up in simulations and yet it is quite likely to occur.

I suspect that it was this kind of use Bessler was referring to when he implied that he might use springs but not in the way people might think.

These kinds of problems and solutions do not show up in simulation software and for that reason I think it is better to make the parts from the beginning.

JC

Saturday, 18 April 2009

Sjack Abeling's wheel

Sjack Abeling's wheel which has been so much discussed on various energy forums is a bit of a mystery to me. I have so many questions which seem to me to undermine his claims to have built a successful gravity wheel. The most trivial-seeming and yet pertinant one for me is why show a video of a non-working wheel (i.e. one with the weights removed) and why now, seemingly some long time after he made it? His patent is apparently fully under way and his
intellectual property rights secured so either show us the working version or, if he has been advised against it by his backers, why show us anything at all?

He claims that his machine works in a certain way, using descriptions so accurately matched to Bessler's own descriptions that one is immediately suspicious of them. I have considerable information about how Bessler's machine worked and I can state with some authority that Abeling's wheel bears little or no similarity to Bessler's.

The concept which he appears to be showing in his much-discussed diagram has no connection whatsoever with Bessler's. But having expressed my doubts I have to consider the possibility that he has managed to create a gravity wheel and one which might include certain similarities to the concept which lies behind Bessler's and I await developments with interest.

My own work to replicate Bessler's wheel continues and I am confident that a working version will be made within a few weeks if not sooner. If I fail I believe it will be due to my own clumsy engineering skills and at that point I will pass the job onto my American friends.

JC

Thursday, 16 April 2009

Climate Change

With climate change on the political agenda the search is officially on for ways of reducing carbon emissions at the same time as finding new, clean sources of energy. There are several initiatives desirous of finding that new energy source but the one which I have been advocating for several years is still being ignored by the vast majority, and that is gravitational energy. Specifically, I refer to Bessler's wheel, of course.

My problem lies, not so much in getting people to consider the potential benefits of such a machine, but to consider whether it is even possible. We have been taught so convincingly that gravity wheels are impossible that no one is prepared to give the possibility a second glance, this, despite the convincing evidence that some have already been built.

My question is this - what more can I do, other than build the wheel? That is something I'm working on, but in the mean time ... if people would view my video it might help. I guess watching a video takes less effort than reading text. If you are reading this blog and wish to help please spread the word about the video. You can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

JC

Monday, 13 April 2009

Youtube video

I have posted a very short version of my video on youtube and have reluctantly removed my likeness from it. I sincerely hope that my legions of female fans (wife, two daughter and two grandaughters) won't be too dismayed at this almost sacriligious cut, but I have to think of the effect my walking, talking image might have on others of a more delicate disposition - and it was too long and boring. Even my speaking voice has been known to have an unusually soporiphic effect on those who are not prepared before hand, so be warned, kind viewer, take note of the message but not the messenger.

You can see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

JC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

Sunday, 12 April 2009

Wheel, Video and paper update

The video I planned to put on youtube was finished and posted but then I withdrew it because it was way too long. I'm shortening it to the recommended maximum of four minutes, which is very difficult to do. How can I cram thirty years research into a four minute video? Well I have to do that or no-one will ever watch it - maybe they won't anyway - we'll see.

The prototype is almost finished. I'm using the same old backplate as I have for the last couple of years. This is the disc I use to fix everything on to. It has its own support frame and is balanced and spins easily. It's so full of holes it's getting quite fragile, but it's made of MDF (medium density fibreboard) which is useful as it's easy to drill and I have found it the most practical medium for the purpose. If this model works I'll produce a nicer looking version to display to the public. I have kept all the old backplates from several years ago, out of sentiment, but really they only tell of the number of failed attempts I have made and don't give away any clues as to the various designs I've tested over the years.

The mechanisms are finished and most of them are attached to the backplate so it won't be long before I'll know if this is a runner. There is one modification I reserve to test if this model doesn't work, and it is based on an ambiguous statement by Bessler, which can be read in three or four different ways. As far as I know I'm the only person who is aware that this comment by Bessler can be read in this particular way, although there is plenty of discussion about the ambiguity of it. This is because I'm aware of something I discovered from Bessler's codes and which I haven't discussed with anyone to date. My indecision about which method to use stems from my knowledge of the various possible interpretations of Bessler's ambiguous remark and in my opinion his comment is connected with this encoded information, but it might not be, in which case the second version I have reserved will be tested.

I picked this particular understanding of the comment in question because it seemed to me that to read it in the obvious way did not make any difference to the way the mechanisms worked, although without seeing the actual mechanisms working it isn't clear that this is so.

Sorry if that has totally confused you!

The paper I have written and intend to post to my friend the American scientist for peer review will be sent if these two models fail; and the book will be published as soon after as I can manage.

Finally thank you to Lucius Anneus for reminding about the purpose of this blog.

JC

Wednesday, 8 April 2009

Where are the girls?

It's a rare thing to find a girl who is interested in the subject of perpetual motion, gravity wheels and the search for an alternative form of energy - at least one that relies on a solution which includes successful revelations in these areas. In fact I'd say it's an impossibility. For example my dearly beloved wife and daughters hold me in their lowest esteem when considering my history of predicted success in this matter and who can blame them? Not I.

They fondly relate my many assumptions of success over the years while laughing amusingly at my catastrophic failure to succeed. I am, however determined to have the last laugh and have secured a staunch ally in the form of my eldest grandaughter who at 16 (nearly) should know better, bless her! She stoutly supports me against the slings and arrows fired from her nearest relatives and berates them for their lack of support in my honest endeavour. I have cunningly responded by promising her the lion's share of the ensuing fortune which will be mine once I have overcome the final niggle that prevents my wheel from flying around under the merest touch of gravity.

This has of course had the desired effect and both my son-in-laws have jumped ship with little or no thought of the moral consequences and have sided with me, proudly announcing that they were always on my side and only pretended to be averse to my ideas in order to test the metal of my resolution to finish successfully in this matter. I have generously (in my opinion) accepted their support and have promised them like riches just as soon as I have the means to hand - but have warned them about the dubious benefits of holding their breath in anticipation of an early payout.

Returning to the title of this blog it is a sad fact that few if any women do show any interest in this field and it is not for lack of female engineers and other suitably qualified members of the fairer sex, because they seem to flock to alternative energy subjects unrelated to this one with almost careless abandon. Now why should that be, I wonder?

I think that in this particular field, men do, unusually, have the more romantic disposition, imagining the benefits of such a device while successfully pushing the realities to the backmost recesses of their conscious minds. On the other hand women, it seems to me, who have always had the lead in supporting such things as mysticism, feng shui, psychic readings and of course green issues, treat this area of research, perpetual motion and gravity wheels that is, with scant regard for its potential. They assume that what they have been taught in this subject is the gospel truth, oddly, rejecting the same things that attracted the male of the species. This strange dichotomy might be explained by the fact that no classical scientist dares breath a word of support in this matter, whereas there are an abundance of 'qualified' chancers who are only too willing to subscribe to the possibilities of mind over matter, interpretation of dreams, fortune telling and psychokinesis. It is this 'clinically proven' attitude to 'spoon bending' and the like which gives the exponents of such beliefs a widespread sham authority which poor old Johann Bessler failed to get and still fails to get - despite my best efforts.
JC

Monday, 6 April 2009

Update

I received an email yesterday asking for any details of the wheel's construction, which I felt able to share with the writer. This is something that happens frequently and I can't blame people for asking, because I keep saying that I know a lot about how the wheel works. I am finding this a really difficult problem to handle because part of me wants to share what I know and the other part wants to be the first to succeed in reconstructing Bessler's wheel.

I know there are some among our fraternity who think I should share it regardless of my own wishes, because this invention could be so valuable to the planet right now. So I'm going to try to satisfy both sides of the arguement. My intention is to continue to finalise publication of my book (which will contain everything I know about the wheel) while at the same time I will continue to experiment with my prototype. Which ever I finish first will determine which action I then take. If the wheel works (please!) before the book is ready, then publication of the details of the wheel will follow; if the wheel doesn't work then publication of the book will follow. The book will be published later anyway, so either way I will share everything soon.

I read the many posts which are published daily on several different forums and I am constantly amazed that no-one else appears to have discovered what I have, about the concept of a gravity wheel. I first realised the truth about them a few months ago, last year in fact. Since then I have performed a number of very simple experiments which prove the principle. Knowing how it works has proved easier than devising a system that fulfills the concept, but with Bessler's help I believe I shall succeed soon. I'm hampered by my lack of skills and equipment but fortunately the design is very simple and should not prove too difficult for me to accomplish.

I know that there are kind souls out there who would jump at the chance to help out here but I am determined to finish this thing myself, if I can.

Rereading the paragraph above, about my surprise that no-one else appears to have reasoned out the concept as I have, I realise that there may well be people out there who have in fact worked it out too, and are currently engaged in the same process as I am, namely the reconstruction of Besssler's wheel. So may the best man win!

JC

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Inspiration, perspiration and simulation

I find that during sleep, sometimes the unconscious goes to work on a problem which has exercised my mind during the day and occasionally presents the solution in the early hours of the morning. Last night was typical and I now understand one point about Bessler's descriptions that had lain in a corner of my mind as an inexplicable fact. Of course once I understood the reasons for it, it all made perfect sense.

These sleep induced revelations are a blessing in one way and a nuisance in another. I cannot usually get back to sleep afterwards, as I have become so excited at the prospect of applying my new found understanding to my prototype wheel. By the way I use the word 'revelation' not in a religious sense but as an enlightening or astonishing disclosure.

I am constantly amazed at the ability of the human mind to 'invent' new mechanical configurations over a period of time and yet I see it in operation with surprising frequency and I think that I don't always appreciate the subtleties and nuances of each design. I mean that, in my own case, often I can examine and test a particular configuration and finally put it aside as being of no practical use in my search for a working gravity wheel, only to discover at a later date a new and subtle variation which shows promise. I have now found myself rebuilding a mechanism which I thought I had thoroughly tested and rejected previously because it now forms the basis of a new theory which was recently revealed to me in the middle of the night.

It is for this reason that I discarded a popular method of searching for a solution, i.e. computer simulation software. I'm convinced that a solution will only be found by a 'hands-on' approach where someone actually builds each mechanism and tests it. It's only by seeing how the different pieces interact that you can vary designs by minute amounts that are not apparent in a simulation.

It has been said (Thomas Alva Edison, I think) that genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, well I'm no genius but I'd say that if I do succeed in reconstructing Besslers wheel it will take similar percentages of effort.

'Confidence is high', as the Americans say. I am certain that I can explain everything about Bessler's wheel within the current laws of physics. I am satisfied that there is no other force or outside agency required for the wheel to work, other than gravity. This, I know, goes against the belief of many, however once it is explained it will become obvious to all.

JC

Hmm - No References to my Books about Johann Bessler on Wiki.

Curiously, despite the fact that I have added information on the subject of Johann Bessler on Wikipedia and other 'official' search...