Wednesday, 17 March 2010

Underlying Principles and Design matters

I think I need to explain myself a little better as I have had some questions raised, and although my answers to them seemed clear enough to me, they obviously remain confusing to others.

My use of the word 'principle' may have unintentionally misled some people. In my mind the words 'principle' and 'design' have two different meanings and that is where the confusion may have arisen. I used the word 'principle' to refer to what, in my opinion, is the actual intellectual reason why Bessler's wheel worked. It does not mean the design of the mechanism. The underlying principle could rely on pendulums, or overbalancing by having some weights further from the centre of gravity when on the falling side of the wheel and nearer to it on the rising side; or it might require the use of an additional force such as ambient temperature changes; or electrostatic or magnetic attraction or a combination of them or centrifugal or centripetal forces or something else. Whatever method the wheel uses may constitute the underlying principle if it can be shown how the use of such forces can be applied to make a working gravity-driven wheel.

So when I say I discovered the principle a while ago, sometime last year or maybe earlier, I cannot remember when precisely, but I mean that now, finally, I can describe how it worked without it coming into conflict with any laws of physics. But the understanding did not arrive in a flash as a complete explanation but rather, it crept up on me in bits and pieces and in the same way, understanding developed in bits and pieces and that is why I cannot say definitively that I discovered the principle on such and such a date. There was, however a starting point which was sudden and dramatic, a bit like Bessler's dream, I imagine. But thinking it out was not enough by itself, to immediately design a working mechanism. That has taken time and I have had to constantly refer to Bessler's clues to gain further insights into how it worked.

So the underlying principle came to be understood by me some time last year and the initial flash of insight which eventually led to full understand occured even earlier than that, but I can't remember exactly when, because the insight did not reveal the full understanding immediately, so I did not know how important it was at the time.

Now as to the design, well there have been several but since the second part of last year I have been designing and redesigning a mechanism which is capable of operating according to the underlying principle. Whether you call it a new design or merely an improved design is a matter of personal opinion, but obviously it has changed over that period but only in detail. Again I may have caused confusion by saying when the design was made and the truth is I can't be sure exactly when this current design was first established as the fore-runner of the prototype but it was towards the end of last year.

All you perpetual motionists know that there comes a point where you are sure you have the final design and you want to share the good news. Then you discover a 'minor' hitch which requires some 'adjustment'. I've been there more times than I care to admit and it is hard to go public and admit you got it wrong. For me this last year has been unique because, as I now understand the underlying principle I know that it is the only way to succeed, but the mechanism has proved to be very difficult to design. Without Bessler's clues I would never have got this far. For instance the 'Toys' page is full of information but it is almost useless unless you have most of the design already down on paper.

One thing is clear; the underlying principle can be used by different mechanisms to achieve the same end, so my mechanism may not be exactly the same as Bessler's and I think that he has put clues out which show more than way to take advantage of this principle.

I hope that's clearer but I have feeling that there may be more questions.

JC

11 comments:

  1. Fascinating, just fascinating. I wish I understood the principle too :( You are doing great work, John!

    ReplyDelete
  2. JC, times have changed since your youth.

    The professor doesn't carry weight to throw around...

    He has a position to protect!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is generally true, but in his case he does have some impressive backers. But I am not sending him my paper yet for reasons I'll go into in my next post.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi John,

    Making a 3 foot wheel powered by ambient temperature, magnetic, or electrostatic changes would not be a perpetual gravity wheel, and examples of such machines can be found all over the patent database. Unless you get in conflict with present laws of science, you cannot call your wheel perpetual since you would need to properly define your source of input energy. Not only prove its presence, but also show you can tap an energy gradient) and most importantly show it is a free source of energy, by free I mean you do not have to pay for it. The only way to justify your claim (of knowing the principle) and that of Bessler (of using no source of energy hidden inside his wheels) would be to prove that you can somehow modify, detect and use gravity's energy gradient.

    Regards X

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree. I have endlessly discussed the definition of perpetual motion elsewhere and I don't want to go through it all again here. I do understand your point and generally refer to Bessler's wheel as a gravity-driven engine, a device which would still appear to conflict with the laws of physics, however I believe I have found a way around the problem as, I think,did Bessler.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, what happened to:

    John Collins said...

    You're absolutely right Anon, and I have decided with some relief, I confess, not to send him anything after all. I have decided to begin work on the prototype again,using good material this time and try and finish it myself and then I shall have no fears of rejection, or theft or plagiarism nor any of the other signs of paranoia that seem to accompany this kind of work.

    JC

    20 MARCH 2010 06:47

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah you're too quick for me anon! I thought I'd enlarge on the subject in a post later rather than do it in a brief comment.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  8. John, have you made sure that your discovery will be available to the world in the unfortunate event of your death? Heaven forbid that we lose a second chance at Bessler's wheel.
    Why not just publicly announce it, and then if it works, the world's media will pay you a fortune for exclusive rights to YOUR story. That is the way you will profit from your hard work. Believe me, if it works, and I have no reason to believe that it won't, then the media will be fighting each other to interview you, and get exclusive rights to talk to you, and you alone, as this will be all over the news, all over the planet. You don't need to worry about patents, YOU end up being the 'product' if it works, and you are the discoverer (or 're'discoverer...)

    I believe that Bessler's wheel worked. Too many trustworthy witnesses saw it working.
    I also believe that it is perfectly possible for a machine to 'extract' gravity from the Earth. We have no clue what gravity IS, let alone how it works, yet still it is there. It is completely outside the three laws of motion, as far as we know.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ps Have you read about Eric Laithwaite's 'space drive', which was alleged to contravene the laws of physics, and thus poo pooed by the 'elite', but Eric worked out how it DIDN'T contravene any laws of physics, and could be used as a gravity 'drive' for space craft, converting electricity into forward motion in space?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bessler, the year, 1700 something. FRAUD, easy to do in that day and age. Surly some mechanical mind since his time would have unlocked the fabled mystery of the machine by now.

    MOM SAYS...you cannot get something for nothing. YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER, physics does not lie. you cannot make one side heavier without using energy to do so. It will never EVER happen.....but go on ... spend time on this wheel instead of with your grandkids.

    the witnesses said: one said a novice could make this. WHY DID HE NOT disclose how...after Bessler died? Co conspiritor....ever see the elephant trick on TV...guy make huge elephant vanish, in fromt of the crowd? the crowd were all in on it. duhhhhh

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whatever one might say, Bessler's story is too true to be doubted..If it was a fraud then why bessler was not caught for so long...It was Bessler's lifetime achievment...there were so many tests and the wheel went unscathed...too many leading characters were involved in the story which only goes to say how critical the matter was...Carl was convinced beyond doubt...only a genuine or a true hero has so many skeptics or enemies...As JC always used to say..energy can be tapped from water force,wind force but why not Gravity force...


    My dear anon...it is just a matter of appropriate design that is the name of the game..we have Electric motor to utilize Electricity, we have internal combustion engine to utilize Gasoline..etc, etc..but do we have any device to take advantage of the gravity force....it is easy to say that we can't get something out of nothing...but we need to understand that indeed Gravity is really something...if it can pull at anything it can also easily assist in bringing about a motion to a wheel...A deftly designed one for that matter...

    ReplyDelete

The Solution Lies within the Existing Documents.

We should return to the task in hand and leave aside the dubious benefits of Remote Viewing, we need to trust only what we know.  We can onl...