I should post another blog to curtail the length of the previous one! It seems as though some people think I should publish everything right now. I said many times I would publish everything I know and I will.
It has been stated that I have plenty of time in my day to finish the work, both the construction and the written, but how can anyone know what I fill my days with? I am up every day at around 5.45 to attend to both the internet and my own computer requirements and I don't usually get to bed before 11.00 pm; I'm retired so where does the day go? I frequently ask myself that question and I can see what has taken up my time. I used to wonder what I would do with my time once I retired - now I wonder how I ever had time to work!
I'm not going to detail what I'm doing every day; it would bore you all and it's private anyway. But I am busy and I do work on both the wheel and the publishing material as and when I can. I continue to research the history of Bessler and answer a number of emails daily. My work in decoding Bessler's material continues in my spare moments - what spare moments? I have a number of web sites to maintain and update which admittedly doesn't take long and I'm still trying to finish my update of my original biography of Bessler.
As for simulations I have tried them in the past and found them awkward and non-intuitive. It has been suggested that I could buy a more powerful PC for £300, off ebay - would you buy a PC off ebay? I wouldn't! I like to know I can go back to the guy who sold it me if something goes wrong and anyway I don't have the cash to flash, buying PCs and simulation software no matter that it's only £30 or whatever.
I know that younger people than I can quickly get the hang of everything digital these days but it gets harder to find your way around it as you age. My fifteen year old grandson is a whizz with computers and can sort out my minor problems with ease.
When I first wrote my book I did it on an Amstrad PCW8512. For those of you who do not know of it, AMSTRAD is a contraction of Alan Michael Sugar Trading - Sugar became the star of the BBC reality show The Apprentice which has had five series broadcast in each year between 2005 and 2009, in the same role as Donald Trump in the US version. I read that he is worth over a billion US$ - not bad for an East End of London barrow boy. That computer was a nightmare to run, and even scrolling down a page took minutes but it was cool then. Since then I have taught myself everything I needed to know about computers and web sites and it was a steep learning curve for me - and it still is. Self-publishing held the same problems, there wasn't much info about it then although now, with such web sites as www.lulu.com, it is so easy.
So I'll say this once more. I am finishing the latest construction and then working or not I go public. I don't think Pete Clarke's going to be able to spare time within the immediate future to assist me in building the designed model so it shouldn't be long before you can see what I've been working on. I'm not giving an estimate of the time because I have been way off on that before, but it will be soon.
JC
Good for you John, Go to it!
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't be more clear. And, remember, good things take time. Don't rush, work calmly and methodically. You are doing a great job!
ReplyDeleteAnd when you meet with success you mustn't forget us, JC sir..we should know it first as we were following you in this blog non-stop.
ReplyDeleteIn the meanwhile, without giving away much, you can give us some hint so that we know that it is not a goose chase. A CLUE OR TWO...this will not only assist others working on the same but will also invite suggestions so that you can make any corrections if reqd. Best luck and expect a speedy result...
Best of luck John. I wish you every success. May the solution be ultimately found, and may the world finally take heed.
ReplyDeleteNyt kyllä luulen että Collins yrittää vain myydä tulevaa kirjaansa. Heitä homo voltti heh heh.
ReplyDeleteTrevor on tyhmin jätkä maailmassa sillä kuka täysijärkinen myy kaiken omaisuutensa ja sijoittaa rahat jättimäiseen hydraulivipuvipperään. Sureh taas on Johnin perseennuolija nro uno uikuttaen anna vinkki anna vinkki.
Persereikä ja hänen kärpäsensä ! Siinä Tämä blogi kiteytettynä.
Of course I will be trying to sell my future book, but not here and not right now. What would be the point when it's unlikely to be ready for a couple of years and when it is, its going to be marketed by the publisher, not me.
ReplyDeleteJC
Suresh you remind me of a temple priestess in a B grade porn film. If your so eager to go turkey on jc sirs staff of baptism go get a room. Gobble gobble.
ReplyDelete"So I'll say this once more. I am finishing the latest construction and then working or not I go public."
ReplyDeleteWhy not construct it on Algodoo...
Nothing wrong with buying a PC off Ebay. How can it go wrong? Do you know how a PC works? How to build one? Surely if you can build Bessler's wheel, you can build a PC.
"soon" = "before the end of time"...
On 27th January 2010, John said:
ReplyDelete"How much time? Not long, but it depends on how difficult it is to fit the mechanisms in the space I've allocated. I should have started with a bigger wheel!"
None of that would be a problem if you had used a simulation program...
It just beggars belief that you are actually trying to build it before you have a working computer model. Nobody else does this.
How difficult can it be to learn Algodoo? Surely you spend more than 29 Euros on materials?
Dear Scavenger: I have Algodoo demo, and also some spare time, would you like us, you and me, build a model of a wheel following some of Bessler's clues? I don't know, maybe we could find if it is suitable to construct an entire model of Bessler’s wheel.
ReplyDeleteAnons don't seem to realise the following...
ReplyDeleteThat Bessler Wheel is too simple to try on a computer. That 90% of the design is already worked out and taking the CAD help now would only complicate the issue. That everyone is not well versed with computers. That we would loose the entire fun by resorting to computers. That intuitive efforts surpasses over CAD efforts in inventions of this nature. That this involves a very clever design that we may only find by thinking as Bessler did at that age. That there are enough simple clues left by Bessler that would simply get by-passed if we resort to CAD. That CAD assistance is reqd only on complicated work but here we already know the concept and the principle and it is just a matter of luck, destiny, fate or such a thing as god's help as Bessler believed....
JC's BOOK "WILL BE READY IN A COUPLE OF YEARS".
ReplyDeletelol.
Suresh, there's no point in talking to this Anon anymore. Exactly as predicted, absolutely nothing will shut this person up or even have him contribute in a positive way -- even after he's exposed for what he is. Now that John has once more done exactly as he promised our trusty anon has found something new: John's upcoming book. It's obviously a severe mental aberration. Heck, he cannot even correctly interpret his own posts! The man is a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) fanatic and he loves to try drive everybody bonkers with his false logic and pseudo-intellectual rantings.
ReplyDeleteBesides, trying to reason with a idiot only proves there's more than one. I will no longer react on any of his insults or provocations.
None of us should waste our time on any of his vitriol.
Andre, Luceus and Suresh... boring... Yet more meaningless drivel from you all...
ReplyDeleteSuresh - Algodoo is obviously what John should be using - but then, he'd find out very quickly that his solution doesn't work, and he would rather cling to his belief that if he just fixes this or that problem on his physical model, it will work...
He will never publish his solution, because he knows it doesn't work...
Maybe he will publish it about two years after he finishes the next book...
Just to clarify the situation, I've had a literary agent for some time now and he has generated interest in my forthcoming book with a couple of publishers. He's listed some requirements which my book needs to meet for the publishers to accept it. I'm fulfilling those and it has been estimated that it could take up to two years before the book goes on sale (but it might be sooner if the wheel appears).
ReplyDeleteJC
Anon,I have question(friendly)are you working on any, or similar(Bessler)devices?
ReplyDeleteAndre, I agree, let us ignore he.
ReplyDeleteHere's one idea that occurred to me tonight: perhaps the mechanism for moving the weights nearer and further from the centre of the wheel, involves rotation around the horizontal plane, not the vertical.
ReplyDeleteAll along, up until now, I had envisioned the weights somehow being moved along the same plane as the wheel rotates, to make them further or nearer to the centre of the wheel. But I suddenly thought about the weights rotating around a horizontal axis, to bring them nearer to or further from the centre of the wheel. Presumably this would make a big difference, as none of the models I have ever seen, work in three dimensions.
In which case Algodoo is no good for modelling Bessler's wheel, and you need a 3D physical simulation package.
I will see what I can find.
Actually, as per Bessler's design, the weights will have to move vertically up along side the axle. I am afraid you are wrong in assuming the weights move horizontally.....And pls note this can be achieved by a lot of imagination and we don't have to use any computer as the mechanism is extremely simple..One wt will lift another...they act in pairs..if you increase the wt on one side of a weighing balance, what happens? The heavier side comes down causing the lighter side go up...seesaw effect...that is all, dear anon...note my words...
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's sufficient to move the pivot (axle) only, not the weights themselves. This shifts the center of gravity as desired. Basically this gives same effect - the seesaw effect. Additional benefit of this is that moving the axle will actually assist (accelerate) the falling side, resulting in more potential kinetic energy, which can be converted to torque by some mechanism at the end of it's swing.
ReplyDeleteImagine an inverted pendulum, perfectly vertically balanced. Move the pivot to the left or the right, and the pendulum will fall to the opposite side of the pivot movement. Move it repeatedly, in very quick succession, and its fall will considerably accelerate, with aforementioned results. So instead of a stable, solid axle, such as good engineering practice would dictate, we internally have a unstable, movable axle (pivot) and on the outside of the machine a stable axle to rest on it's supports.
Andre, maybe it could be sufficient, like when you have a ball attach to one extreme of a rope and the other hold in your fingers, you begin to move your hand in such a way the ball begins to rotate very fast. Your finger represent the axle you want to move and the ball one of the weights.
ReplyDeleteNow, what sort of mechanism would move the axle in the needed way to accelerate the ball (weights)? And would it be sufficient the energy supplied by the rotation of the weights, to move the axle in the needed way and to keep the weights rotating?
You are right, sir..Both the wt and the axle have to move..it's all about the leverage...Bessler Wheel takes advantage of both the gravity and the benefits of the lever principles...it is, infact, the outcome of newtonian gravity findings and the archimedes law of levers that bessler employed in his wheel.
ReplyDeleteSo what Trevor had stated as the cause of it all could be this lever principle...
In simple terms, the bessler wheel works on the principles of gravity and levers....
Lucious..that is why I had stated earlier that 90 percent of the wheel's secret lies in the clever design of the lever and the wt...If we can achieve this then the mystery is solved...and that is why it was always being quoted as very simple....
ReplyDeleteAssume a clockwise rotation.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of a horizontal rail for the inner axle, with a linear bearing, such that it can move with little friction from the left to the right and vice versa, thus accelerating the fall of the pendulum weights. This movement of the inner axle on the linear bearing could be caused by some gear, pushing the axle back and forth. At the end of the pendulum's swing, somewhere around the 4 o'clock position, it should be stopped (braked) and therefore the potential kinetic energy converted to torque. For that, we need some kind of temporary torque storage and transfer system.
Imagine a second wheel within our main wheel, free to rotate but loosely coupled to the outer structure of the main wheel by means of lateral springs. By making sure that the inner wheel (in which the inverted overbalanced pendulums fall) is NOT perfectly round, but slightly egg-shaped, the pendulums will be stopped (braked) and the kinetic energy of the impact (braking) transferred to the inner wheel. Remember, the inner wheel is free to rotate but loosely coupled to the outer wheel by means of springs. Thus the kinetic energy of the pendulum(s) braked by the the inner wheel is now converted to torque which is subsequently transferred to the outer wheel as a result of the springs pulling on the outer wheel. This outer wheel is, of course, completely free to rotate on it's own (fixed) supports and it's momentum will ensure that the whole assembly keeps rotating. A fraction of a second after the pendulums have impacted the inner wheel they are freed again and allowed to start a new freefall, and the cycle repeats. The inner wheel resets itself due to the spring action, and will do so counterclockwise.
The only thing needed here is some simple spring-loaded switching mechanism that enables the (round, half moon shaped) weights of the inner pendulum on both sides to be reversed, such that it overbalances again while the momentum of the outer wheel carries them over the (down) 6 o'clock and (upper) 12 o'clock position. This could be done at the instant of the pendulum weights impacting on the inner wheel. After that the pendulums are released again, and the cycle repeats.
Suresh... Correct, Prince Karl said: Interior of the machine was a simple arrangement of weights and levers.
ReplyDeleteNow, we know by Bessler himself weights gave the torque to the wheel, “so arranged that certain disposed weights, once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue this movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement."
OK, and the levers? What were used for?
To elevate descended weights, to give them more kinetic energy, to move them closer to the center or gravity? For other purpose maybe?
Shouldn't we try to determine first which of these, was the most likely purpose?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAndre… I made a mental picture of the horizontal rail for the inner axle with its linear bearing to move back and forth the axle, to which is attached the end of the pendulum, to accelerate its fall; however, as you correctly state we would have to include a gear or a camshaft or another mechanism to cause this back and forth movement, then would have to stop the pendulum’s swing, as you say around 4 o’clock and convert the potential kinetic energy to torque, finely we would have to develop some sort of mechanism to temporary store the torque and then transfer it to the system; all these certainly can be manufactured, but wouldn’t we be losing the track?
ReplyDeleteWe would be including a gear, a horizontal rail, two axles, and a second wheel, don’t recall to have read any of these mechanisms in Bessler’s clues, we would be complicating the model I think.
Don’t you think we should not lose from sight Bessler’s wheel was indeed very simply.
Andre… I hope I have expressed myself tactfully, if I haven’t, I sincerely apologize.
Gentlemen, shall we not be intruding this blog discussing our affairs, here? As far as I know the purpose of this bolg is for updates of our Dear John Collins’s work and to post comments of it.
Hey Guys, I'm delighted to read your comments and please feel free to discuss things here.
ReplyDeleteJC
Bessler's wheel looked very much simple inside..The above explanations slightly differ...Andre sir, Lucious seems to be right..We should exclude horizontal railing, second wheel, gear, the back and forth movement, linear bearing, half moon shaped weights, braking of the inner wheel,.etc,...
ReplyDeleteThe levers were only used to keep the weights in control and closer to the axle.
Lucious, go ahead..you are doing fine..
John Collins said...
ReplyDeleteHey Guys, I'm delighted to read your comments and please feel free to discuss things here.
JC
That way, I might get an idea from you all that will help me to blow the doors off this problem of stillness.
Dear John, thanks for your kind hospitality.
ReplyDeleteDear Suresh, I appreciate your thought on the way you think I’m doing, thanks a lot.
Suresh says the levers were used to keep weight in control and closer to the axle, he may be right, but that is only one possibility, what do you think gentlemen about the other two possibilities? The one suggested by Andre to give the weights more kinetic energy perhaps with the pendulum shown on the front part of Bessler’s wheel drawings and the other to run the runner or to blow the hammer.
The levers also help in the swing...and pls note that the pendulum in front of bessler wheel was only meant for controlling wheel's speed. we need not consider it now as it is not to be mixed up with the internal secret mechanism.
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall that one of Bessler's clues was a "wheel in a wheel", but I am not sure. I think levers with weights only will not generate sufficient torque and momentum to keep the whole thing going, as is the case with most if not all similar overbalanced embodiments that have been tried over time. I could imagine however that the outer wheel would use levers and weights to increase overall torque and momentum to help the whole assembly, but I do think there is a need for some kind of (inverted) pendulum mechanism inside the inner wheel to generate free-fall kinetic energy and convert that to torque, transferred to the outer assembly. Maybe we can dispense with the horizontal movement of the inner axle/pivot, but that would reduce the potential kinetic energy and, after conversion, torque. Maybe even a double pendulum was used ("acted as pairs") in the inside wheel. If they impacted slightly one after another, it would deliver a "double whammy" converted to torque. I have little doubt that some kind of inner wheel was used for the torque storage and transfer mechanism. From Bessler's drawings it can clearly be seen that at the underside of the wheel the thickness is smaller than at the top part, like so /\. The only reason I can see for this is that this would cause the inner wheel to move up and therefore stop the inverted pendulum(s) at roughly the 4 o'clock position. This could/should be adjustable by varying the sloping angle of the outer or main wheel.
ReplyDeleteAnother possibility would be a parametric oscillator such as a overbalanced fulcrum with (normal, horizontal) pendulum, driving the main shaft of the wheel by converting the up/down motion of the fulcrum to rotational torque - much like a regulator in a clock.Bessler was a clockmaker as well. This would also assure a very smooth and stable rotation, even under load.
As for simplicity - this is not that complicated. Educated people in those days, such as Karl, would certainly have understood. The problem with oversimplification, I fear, is that it would work - several mechanisms are required, as John has also stated.
But of course, these are all speculations.
That should be "...is that it would NOT work...". Sorry for the typo.
ReplyDeleteBessler Wheel's main secret lay in the unique lever-weight design, arrangement and the marvelous way it functioned....
ReplyDeleteWhen a weight attached to a lever gets to the farther end of a wheel (3 o clock position) it really has an appreciable weight. We should try holding a six foot long pole with a weight weighing near about a kilo or two to realize this. Several such poles (levers with weights) working inside a wheel would produce sufficient torque (include Centrifugal force and inertia).
Bessler's clue "wheel in a wheel" doesn't necessarily mean a smaller wheel inside. Karl definitely did not see a smaller wheel inside. He was just amazed at the artful arrangement of levers and weights. This is the simplicity quoted everywhere. Also, the pendulum could just mean a swinging lever-weight mechanism.
As long as we maintain this simplicity we are sure not to go astray...
Hmm... I question, actually, the accuracy of Karl's description. He had to promise to Bessler, in order to see the secret, not to disclose anything major about the inner workings of the wheel. The use of weights and even springs were mentioned and confirmed by Bessler, so Karl could safely repeat that. "so simple a carpenter's boy could built it" is what he is supposed to have remarked. On the other hand, carpenters were necessarily quite skilled in those days - more so, perhaps, than today.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt, Suresh, you are correct that a weight on a long lever exerts considerable force at the axle - the law of the lever. The mass itself doesn't increase, of course, but the force at the axle sure does with the length of the extension. The problem is, as it has always been, that the energy budget balances out on retrieving the weight back towards the axle. Unless... we use some kind of pendulum arrangement for each lever, such that it swings outward only once, is held there for a few moments, released and swings back again towards the axle (spring action, which had been compressed by the impact of the outward swing?) around the 4 or 5 o'clock position, and is then held (locked) there, ready to be released again at the (next) 12 o'clock position of the subsequent cycle.
The next question is then, is only one or two, maybe three, pendulum/weights extended to the right (assuming clockwise rotation) sufficient to lift all the others up on the ascending side of the wheel? That depends, I presume, on how far we can extend them on their outward swing. That implies levers as long as possible, and that, in turn, limits the number of weights/pendulums possible due to space constraints.
Maybe we shouldn't think in terms of a symmetrical construction :)
Questions, questions... :)
You probably need to combine three arrangements in each mechanism, as the apologia wheel perhaps hints at: a pendulum, a lever, and a sliding mechanism.
ReplyDeleteThere has to be a certain amount of complexity to the mechanism, as most of the simple stuff has been investigated extensively over the years.
John are you also delighted that Lucius Anneus is probably a joke for Luscious Anas?
ReplyDeleteAndre sir…
ReplyDeleteConventional visualization of eight evenly spaced hanging mechanisms inside the wheel will only raise more questions in us...
The magic happens when these mechanisms get into action due to their special design and arrangement. They can never come to rest until their parts get worn out at some later stage.
There is no complexity in the mechanism...most of the simple stuff haven’t actually been cleverly explored yet.. The combined effects of gravity, levers, weights, springs, centrifugal force, inertia, inclined plane, ( also consider ball bearings), derived in a very clever manner, come into play in every revolution...
Springs are used to hasten the swing. The weights stand extended till the wheel's circumference at its farthest end and move along the axle while ascending, one after one, in a quick succession, using up minimal efforts.
Karl honestly upheld his promise to bessler by never revealing the secret arrangement of these uniquely designed lever-weight mechanisms, which he was amazed to see inside...
Not really because I know that he was a famous Roman philosopher, poet, statesman and historian.
ReplyDeleteJC
John Collins said...
ReplyDeleteNot really because I know that he was a famous Roman philosopher, poet, statesman and historian.
JC
But not before you googled the name??
What may really scare Collins is that someone here knows what JB meant when he said the "weights climb back up". And knows how to do it, to make them climb back up on their own, with no force being applied to them other than what holds them in place.
ReplyDeleteI can do this.
Anon 23:58...
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have sensed the smart secret...tell me honestly, when and how did you perceive it...did you employ algodoo..
We are so scared of your idea anon.. EPIC Scared!
ReplyDelete...
NOT!
Andre said: "You couldn't be more clear. And, remember, good things take time. Don't rush, work calmly and methodically. You are doing a great job!"
ReplyDeleteReally? I didn't realise you lived with John, Andre.
So what are you talking about?
"good things take time".
Such wisdom! Such pathetic excuses, more like.
John will never release his solution, because it doesn't work.
Still, the 'believers' here can always fall back on "soon", and tell us all that he will "soon" release his secret.
Tell us, John, is your solution so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and build it, once he had seen inside the wheel?
Andre said: ""so simple a carpenter's boy could built it" is what he is supposed to have remarked. On the other hand, carpenters were necessarily quite skilled in those days - more so, perhaps, than today."
ReplyDeleteMore denial from a true believer...
From one of John's post on the BesslerWheel forum:
"The statement comes from Joseph Fischer, the son of Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, a famous Austrian architect, sculptor and architectural historian. He carried out a number of tests on the wheel and wrote to Desaguliers, Sir Isaac Newton's curator of experiments. The quote is as follows:-
"His Highness, who has a perfect understanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, and that he would not risk his name in giving these attestations, if he did not have knowledge of the machine." "
The inside of the wheel must be very simple, otherwise Bessler wouldn't have been so terrified of somebody merely glancing inside it.
Let me repeat:
"the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel."
Carpenter's BOY, that means somebody not as mature, intelligent, and experienced, as a carpenter, but still learning the trade.
Cue the excuses.
I'll soon be 120 years old..
ReplyDeleteNow that so many clues are out and there is a lot of understanding about the basic structure of the wheel, anyone out there would definitely build one soon...It would just amount to a give away or exposing everything by explaining it further..
ReplyDeleteInside of the machine was very simple indeed and bessler was always worried. The saying that a carpenter boy could understand is also very much true. These facts are quite true and they remain our guiding principles. We shouldn't complicate the issue by our complex thoughts. I am quite sure that someone would turn up with a working proto type soon...
If JC sir hasn’t been coming out with his model it should be understood. Why victimize him. Infact, we should be grateful for his elaborate knowledge and understanding of the subject and his efforts to spread bessler info…But, I agree that it is a pity that he hasn’t built one.. The reasons could be many…
The problem comes only when we complicate the issue. The simplicity of the wheel always needs to be borne in mind. No special knowledge is reqd..
The main principle/forces behind the wheel are gravity and the advantages of levers, and the means we can employ to reduce friction, wherever possible....
Sorry Guys, I could not make the deadline for May due to unforeseen mechanical difficulties,but I should have proof of prototype in this month of june. It's one thing to know the solution but another thing to express it in practice. Let it be a comfort to you that both Bessler and John Collins will be vidicated and justified for their efforts.
ReplyDeleteExcuse the typo! "vindicated"
ReplyDeleteTrevor...you said that it is one thing to know the solution but another to express...
ReplyDeleteThat is why it is said that we shouldn't count the chickens before they are hatched..
Bessler solution is too simple and it shouldn't be difficult to express practically provided that it is actually known to anyone..
Pls ensure that is not another goose chase..you may discuss any difficulty...
we can always guide one another without of course giving off much…
Please don't misunderstand me when I say when you know that you know that you have the truth. I stand by what I have said. Even Bessler got a headache trying to adjust the wheel. If you dont have everything just right mechanically you can miss it even though you know the answer. Even so it has been a wonderful journey of discovery in mechanical physics.
ReplyDeleteThe weights have a tendency to go down when they are assembled appropriately. I am talking about the uni-directional wheel. The wheel would start rotating immediately and it would be difficult to stop the same. Such is the design.
ReplyDeleteThere are 8 lever-weight mechanisms and if you could get one mechanism right the rest is just duplication.
Now, Tell me, why people don't get it right..why there is some mechanical problems always with everyone... why do they always miss it when they have the answer...why do they have problem while trying to practically make it when the solution is known to them..why do they keep postponing it every time by some excuses..
We sometimes get annoyed with the anons, but we fail to realize that they believe us and are always eagerly watching every development. ....Every time someone comes up claiming he has the solution and later goes silent and everyone else is disappointed at the end by listening to excuses and reasons, after a long wait...we have no right to take anyone for a ride...if we know something about the solution we should discuss about it and guide others, of course, by taking enough precautions in not giving away everything....
Trevor, I hope you understand what I mean here...300 years have passed and this is what has been happening...one fine day people will just get fed up of all this...
Trevor, does the following quote apply to your solution:
ReplyDelete"His Highness, who has a perfect understanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, and that he would not risk his name in giving these attestations, if he did not have knowledge of the machine."
If I just give you the answer, what glory or sense of achievement is in it for you. You will never feel gratified if it's handed to you on a plate. Let the best man win then others will say,but its so simple why did we not think of it first. I understand your frustration but you have not been waiting 300years. Be patient just a little while longer.
ReplyDeleteI think what Karl saw, and what he understood about the deep principle in the wheel,are two different things.What he saw was simple arrangement of weights,ropes ,pulleys and levers but what he did not realised is that it was a finely tuned arrangement.That is why it could only go one speed,if it went any faster it would limit itself. Anyway Suresh don't worry I will not disapear.
ReplyDeleteChaos would result when speeded up...yes..
ReplyDeleteThat was for the bi-directional wheel...and I don't think any ropes and pulleys are involved inside other than the weights and levers....
We should always begin with the uni-directional one for its simplicity..bessler created the bi-directional one to prove that there was no fraud involved...
Trevor..anon is right...if the description in Karl's quote matches then only we can lay claim to the solution...
Even if you personally ask me I would vouch for the wheels simplicity...
Weights swing, hit the wheel on one side, come down rotating the wheel and then go up keeping close to the axle for repetition…
Dear Trevor… Would you mind to tell us if your prototype includes levers?
ReplyDeleteI think the levers were purely the handles of the swinging hammers. Remember there are weights and there are weights. Working weights and setting weights. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteTrevor...only working weights exists..
ReplyDeleteLevers perform the actual trick for weight climb up..
I am sorry...your prototype may not succeed..
Has yours?!!!
ReplyDeleteRemember,the principle makes all the difference.Once you have that, you can use various ways to store the potential energy.
ReplyDeleteTrevor...there is only one principle and one solution...
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to tell you that you are mistaken by thinking that there are various ways to express..
there is only one way..that is bessler way..
Only one mechanism...
I have not started my prototype yet...I am waiting for some leave...
I have always believed that if it was achieved one way at all,there has to be more than one way to do it.I refuse to idolize Bessler. The priciple remains the same but way to store hte potential energy can vary.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why this computer keeps making spelling errors. I'll say it again. The principle remains the same but the way to store the potential energy can vary.
ReplyDeleteNo!no!no! I have always believed that if it was achieved one way at all, there has to be more than one way to do it. I refuse to idolize Bessler. The principle remains the same but the way to store the potential energy can vary.
ReplyDeleteTrevor, every other way has been tried out often by others..since there is only one bessler way, the wheel could not be made by others so far..
ReplyDeletePls go thru earlier posts..If anyone wants to succeed in this he should first understand that there is only one way..one mechanism, ie,. bessler mechanism...
Otherwise, it's going to be a wild goose chase...
The principle does not belong to Bessler,it is a principle in physics that only comes into play within the structure of a wheel. If I produce a working wheel I can never say that it resembles anything like Bessler's, because he never showed it publically or to me. This principle even allows one to make a wheel that will work in space where there is no gravity! How do you like them onions!
ReplyDeleteWell then , this is something new which we will have to wait and see...it is possible to produce a wheel that will work in space...we will have to replace gravity with magnets...
ReplyDeleteBessler left many clues in the form of drawings, poems, other writings, etc., which gives us a picture of his wheel interior..
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTrevor...
ReplyDeleteIt seems Bessler’s wheel did not store potential energy in any way, it’s more likely he found the way to 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards. He could make a pound-weight rouse as 4 ounces felt, or 4 pounds rouse as 16 ounces felt.
Can your prototype sort that out? If it can’t... your hard work in storing potential energy could be all in vain.
"He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas (here we can read: about storing potential energy) about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!" - pg 295
Bessler learned it too well from his experiences and in the hard way through bitter experience.
Won’t you be walking the same first Bessler's steps?
Dear all: Does anybody know what happened to Sjack Abeling machine?
ReplyDeleteAbeling claimed he had a contract with Netherlands Government to generate electricity and he supposed to be generating it for public consumption there by now.
Lucius, you mean Sjaak (not Sjack) Abeling? I have not heard from that from my contacts in the Netherlands. I can ask around if you like.
ReplyDeleteI have been toying around with a rather crude but sturdy parametric oscillator. With a rather simple setup it can easily lift a 80 pound weight half a meter; that's a lot of torque when converted to rotational movement. And the energy required to keep the pendulum going, once it's oscillating, is a mere few hundred grams. Even when one incorporates the energy input required by the operator to get the thing going and keep it going, that still works out to a COP (coefficient of performance, NOT efficiency) of roughly 12. Very promising, in my optic.
See also RHEAD100 on youtube. That's not me, but a similar rig, only this guy hasn't worked out the escapements (as he calls it) yet. I have a magnet system in mind, and I am converting the output directly to rotation, using both swings of the pendulum, not only one direction. Might be interesting for you guys to watch.
Maybe the two stage oscillagtor is the secret:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8
Hey guys...you are all deviating from the bessler phenomenon...have you given up building bessler wheel or have just lost interest in the wheel..
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression we were close to breaking the secret, but now, at the end of the comments, it has become a two stage oscillator!!
Even the anons seem to join in exploring the oscillator..What is happening??
With so many clues out than ever before it is really a surprise to find the topic change..
Bessler Wheel is more grand than all these devices..It is more promising...it is more simple..and more intriguing and interesting too, isn't it???
We need e "rep bar" and colored dots and threat of banishment on this blog to prevent so much negative ideas to be thrown around and discussed.
ReplyDelete"fly lightly upwards" How do we know if that is the true translation?
ReplyDeleteYou guys should be on the www.besslerwheel.com forum discussing designs.
ReplyDeleteWhen something moves fast it is usually said to be flying, eventhough, technically it is not..
ReplyDeleteLucius is right..
The weights move fast up keeping up with the swing of their counter parts on the opposite side..
50 revolutions per minute is a good speed for a wheel carrying so many heavy weights..
The weights are made light before being hauled up..
Hence, 'fly lightly upwards' is not a bad translation..
Andre...
ReplyDeleteThe guy's full name is Jacobus Johannes Abeling, he has a patent application, and you can see it at http://freenrg.info/Sjack_Abeling/Patent/Html/Google_English_Translation.htm
His company "Abeling Beheer B.V." is supposed to be in partnership with several other companies to build the worlds very first Weight Power Plant in the Netherlands
And yes Andre, I would like it very much, please ask around to see what you can find out.
Thanks a lot.
Andre is there any way for you to find out if that patent was indeed granted to Abeling or if it's still an application or if it maybe was denied to this guy?
ReplyDelete