OK! Deep breath; here goes!
I've published my theory about Bessler's wheel at www.gravitywheel.com. I had hoped to call it a bit more than a theory or a hypothesis by demonstrating a working 'proof of principle' wheel, however I might succeed in a while - see, no time commitment there!
Despite my apparent confidence I am extremely apprehensive about the reaction to my explanation of how Bessler's wheel worked. When the document itself was being written and rewritten it was easy to be so full of enthusiasm but publishing it for all to see, feels a bit like sticking your head up above the ramparts so people can shoot at you!
I'm not sure whether to accept comments here or respond on besslerwheel forum. I'll wait and see what happens - maybe nothing?
JC
I've published my theory about Bessler's wheel at www.gravitywheel.com. I had hoped to call it a bit more than a theory or a hypothesis by demonstrating a working 'proof of principle' wheel, however I might succeed in a while - see, no time commitment there!
Despite my apparent confidence I am extremely apprehensive about the reaction to my explanation of how Bessler's wheel worked. When the document itself was being written and rewritten it was easy to be so full of enthusiasm but publishing it for all to see, feels a bit like sticking your head up above the ramparts so people can shoot at you!
I'm not sure whether to accept comments here or respond on besslerwheel forum. I'll wait and see what happens - maybe nothing?
JC
Thanks for uploading this John - you have been busy! I feel sure that a working model is not very far away!
ReplyDeleteI do hope that people respond without the mindless vitriol that characterises some of the discussions on the bulletin boards.
If you get flamed, remember the golden rule: "Ignore it"
:)
Well done posting John.
ReplyDeleteI am in the process of reading it. Will need some time to digest it.
Cheers and thanks.
Why would he get flamed. After many promises he finally has come true and published it all. Something that couldn't be said about Bessler and countless of people after him.
ReplyDeleteRunner or not he has my full respect now.
Thanks for fulfilling John!!
ReplyDeleteI'm making a wm2d model to test your mech.. But imho, I believe you are bending some of the clues in your favor..
Thanks John, I'm looking now more seriously at MT 24&25. Well thought out. -ssmyser
ReplyDeleteGREAT WORK JOHN. My deepest respect for sharing your hard work and research here. Runner or not, this is absolutely fantastic and incredibly brave, not to mention extremely generous. I always knew you would keep your word!
ReplyDeleteI have the deepest respect, and everybody who has the gall to criticize such a wonderful gesture for mankind only exposes him/herself for the idiots they are.
My hat off to you, sir!
Thank You Mr. Collins. I will be studying the information carefully over the next few weeks. Good luck to us all!
ReplyDeleteThanks for publishing John.
ReplyDeleteCoincidently I had a short dream this morning suggesting that variable length pendulums may aid in my own wheel design. I like your theory and the reference to skiing.
May I suggest that you keep and place "the Collins conjucture" on at least one of your webpages somewhere as it too makes very interesting and thought provoking reading.
I've been studying the information carefully, and I think you've cracked it, or it's at least extremely close! This is definitely worthy of further research and experimentation. I am very pleased it indeed has something (actually very much) to do with parametric oscillations - the only thing I could think of. Bessler was a clockmaker after all, and well versed in such mechanical systems. It's indeed relatively simple, elegant, logical and I think very, very feasible. Really excellent work, John!
ReplyDeleteGood Job JOHN!
ReplyDeletePlease ask someone to help with your site it is awfully made.
ReplyDeleteSo many good site building software and you make the ugliest of them all.
Buy a iMac and use iWeb please.
Maybe put you time and effort on building your PM machine first and if it works dedicate all of your other time on a better site. But if it works you can pay somebody to built it for you.
Now I will go and read your findings, I am very curious in how You think it works ….
Thagre Oehlarry
One word:
ReplyDeleteALGODOO.
Four words: Here we go again...
ReplyDeleteHello John
ReplyDeleteI have read your explanations and made some calculations. At 0 degrees the shifter lever and the main lever are both horizontal. Both levers have the same weight. When they arrive 90 degrees, the shifter lever fall down x = arc cos((z-1)/z) degrees (z is the multiple length of the shifter lever than the main lever) to lift up the main lever. Then the wheel turns to 180 degrees. And there is the torque = shifter lever + main lever = radius + radius – length * cos(x). If we assume that the radius = 10, shifter lever = 6, main lever = 1 the torque is 10 + 10 - 6 * cos(arc cos( ((6/1)-1)/(6/1) )) = 15. And now the same at 45 degrees: radius + lever + radius - shifter lever = 10 + 1 + 10 - 6 = 15. Sorry, but I think there is no imbalance.
And sorry for my bad English.
Greetings, Joel
Thank you Joel. I don't doubt your calculations but imbalance is not the key to this design - it's parametric oscillation and imbalance is almost a side effect.
ReplyDeleteJC
Joel, assuming you use the inverse trigonometric cosine in your formula, I get 19.72. I.e. in a spreadsheet: 10+10-6*COS(ACOS(COS((6/1)-1)/(6/1)))
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand 10+10-6*COS(ACOS(((6/1)-1)/(6/1))) does equate to 15. I think I'm doing this wrong i.e. interpreting your formula wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bessler was an mathematician ???
ReplyDelete“It was a simple design everybody could make …”
First make one machine and then use your time to debate about it.
If you go it this way it will never happen ….
Thagre Oehlarry
I apologise if my web site does not meet your standards Thagre Oehlarry, only I'm old and just an amateur with web site design and although I have made several over the years I can only use what I can get from my web site host and I am familiar with it sufficiently to post something however ugly you think it is. In fact I think it looks terrific in Internet Explorer but I don't know how to make that work across all browsers.
ReplyDeleteJC
John the site looks fine. (With font that I can read without glasses). Most of us here are interested with the content not the aesthetics. -ssmyser
ReplyDeleteI see a really big flaw in the design. As far as I have understand, the purpose is to move one weight a larger distance by another weight (the shifter, which is equal!) that moves a shorter distance, in the hope of leverage. That is, related to the principle of the lever, simply impossible. You can at most get the same distance. I tried several designs in real world with this principle but there is and there will be no chance here. Also I cannot see parametric occilation as the key because that is only used for the displacement of the masses at the right time. So I am sorry but I see absolutely no chance for this design to work. Apart from that, thank you very much for posting, John!
ReplyDeleteActually I have done this several times. Its easy enough to move a weight through a larger angle with an equal weight moving through a small angle, as long as the shifter lever is long and the primary lever is short. Try it, it really is not a problem. I'll try to make a video of it to show you.
ReplyDeleteJC
See, the longer the shifter lever is the more it has to travel to lift the same distance! And there is another problem: your design uses only the smallest amount of force the shifter weight could provide. Look at the 'active fall' scenario. There the shifter weight is like a inverted pendulum. We move on from 6'o clock and it begins to fall while it shall rise the primary weight quickly. But the long shifter has a really small angle so it provides a really small amout of force. The 90 degree angle would be the most effective one for this action, you know.
ReplyDelete@JC, I hate when people accuse there age for not wanting to learn new things.
ReplyDeleteI read in your profile that you are A sales engineer, so you have a kind of diploma en still you can not make a simple site, how are you gone make a ‘Besslers Wheel’?
Everything starts at learning and punctuality otherwise ….
After reading your site I do not believe that you can make this machine.
You are so wrong in different theories and like ‘Lustinbklack’ has pointed out you bend the clues in your favour.
I think a gone write my own book of clues after I finish my PM machine, it will be finished very soon now and I will beat you to it.
“What goes down must go up”
” Up is more important than down”
Thagre Oehlarry
SOPM - make the lever assembly as shown on the web site - that will answer your doubts more than anything I can say. It works. The photos at the end of the page are real and show the facts.
ReplyDeleteThagre, I said I was old but I learned many new things such as how to write and post a web site, ugly or not. I hope you do beat me to it with your PM machine, but I have my doubts.
JC
Re:
ReplyDeleteThagre ... what you said doesnt make any sense at all. If you have nothing constructive to say dont spare your time here.
John even am not sure I get thruu your theory am still in awe you did published it ...like said runer or not you have and always had my respect.
Looking forward to see somebody test it properly.
PM: I am indeed waiting for you new book ..any estimated date it could be aviable?
Martin
@Martin, and all the rest
ReplyDeleteIf people think there are clues in a drawing, picture or text than you will see clues.
There are even clues in the fur of the kat “Garliefd” if you look close.
I am very constructive you just have to find the clues in my text.
In this day and age a website is not so difficult to make if you can make a PM.
I am almost finished my own “Peretuum Mobile” that’s how I now you are looking at the wrong clues and angles. Angels has nothing to do with it, the important thing is not down but up in Besslers Wheel. Look in Besslers book fort that clue.
Also is it not important that you finish the Wheel before you start an website. It looks like you are using people to help you finish your work because YOU (JC) don’t have a clue!
I will be reading your funny calculations and wrong clues for ever more, ever more, evermore, …..
Thagre Oehlarry
Again I say - ALGODOO!
ReplyDeleteWhy are you even spending time on anything else John, when you can easily learn Algodoo in a day, and then test out EVERYTHING you have put on your site?
The only flaw I find in the website is that the top part, with the navigation buttons, takes up one third of the screen, all the time, and makes reading the text itself, more difficult.
When I get some time (I am not retired and work more than 60 hours a week) I will try to duplicate John's hypothesis in Algodoo, unless somebody else has the time to do so.
I can't believe that you have actually been building physical versions of this, without simply using a computer to do it all for you.
Anon 14:52 - that's a constructive offer, to try to replicate the mechanism(s) in Algodoo. However, the critics I've read about that program were not too favorable. They said it could be useful to teach children some of the basics of physics but it contains many inaccuracies and shortcomings. Some basic reading I've done on the web confirms this. But by all means, if you can test the concepts with some degree of accuracy, everybody will benefit from it.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Algodoo sucks, I tried it, it's bad.. Use wm2d, it might be old and stinky, but it does the job better IMHO than algodoo, which uses advanced game physics more than anything (unless they totally redesigned it?) ..
ReplyDeleteJohn, I want to apologize for when I was being an Ass, I see your disclosure motivated many people, and myself too! This is good! ..
You seem confident, I like it, let's see where this goes, hopefully, this wheel will turn by itself.
John as always great work. Thank you for sharing all of this. I hope soon someone will have a runner and we all can put this thing to bed and get on with changing the world. I think your design has merit and is as simple as Bessler might have made it.
ReplyDeleteJonny C. Krets
Algadoo is rubbish, have had impressive sims, of a simple device, the problem was in the hinge, it tries to move apart, somehow in Algadoo this creates power in the sim which causes unrealistic results.
ReplyDeleteShit, i had a 4 metre wheel simulated that wouldn't stop even when 20000NM of brake was applied to the centre wheel hinge, it had over 5 million joules of power, was totally excited until realizing the hinges were trying to break apart, this somehow created this power.
Its good for basic balance tests, for anything else its a joke.
Hey, where's the annoying anon btw, no news from him, he was absolutely certain that there was no disclosure coming.. lol ..
ReplyDeleteLustinBlack: Don't worry, he already was here and posted, but much, much less noisy. That will change, of course.
ReplyDeleteMore of the same rubbish...
ReplyDeleteAlgodoo is rubbish, apparently.
Isn't there any good simulation software then?
Somebody could knock up a copy of John's wheel in an evening, rather than sitting here spouting conjecture, and trying to build physical models...
But apparently because "Algadoo is rubbish", we should keep pretending that John's wheel is going to work, IF somebody can build a real one.
No explanation yet, from anybody, about why you aren't trying to produce a working computer model.
I do not believe in simulations, even though I got quite good at wm2d. They are only good for animation purposes, not simulating the real deal. The only accurate simulator is nature.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the web design. It's funny it's being discussed. I admit it's ugly. But it's john's first step, as john has contributed some pro web designer can contribute a better design. It's all html so a day or two tops would suffice.
Also animations, which I can contribute myself, would be a useful addition.
This is how open source works people, the community gets involved.
From the BesslerWheel forum (the members of which are obviously more serious about testing whether a hypothesis works, than the members here, who seem to want to hold onto a dream, rather than actually make a computer model):
ReplyDelete"I did a computer simulation of your assembly and the result is disappointing - as I expected."
And even LustinBlack posted:
"My simulation didn't work too.. "
Well done LustinBlack - I was wrong ONCE, but right all the other umpteen times when John said he was going to publish, but never did...
Can you show us your simulation, and tell us what you did it on?
"I do not believe in simulations, even though I got quite good at wm2d. They are only good for animation purposes, not simulating the real deal. The only accurate simulator is nature."
ReplyDeleteYes, sure. That is absolute rubbish - there are thousands of companies all over the world, using computers to simulate physical objects. You are just delaying the inevitable - i.e. that it won't work. You have to keep insisting that 'computers can't simulate it properly', so that you can maintain your belief that it will work, one day...
>>>>
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
More of the same rubbish...
Algodoo is rubbish, apparently.
Isn't there any good simulation software then?
Somebody could knock up a copy of John's wheel in an evening, rather than sitting here spouting conjecture, and trying to build physical models...
But apparently because "Algadoo is rubbish", we should keep pretending that John's wheel is going to work, IF somebody can build a real one.
No explanation yet, from anybody, about why you aren't trying to produce a working computer model.
<<<<
Dude, wtf is preventing you to simulate the idea yourself!? .. Stop complaining and telling others they should work, when in fact, you are the one doing absolutely nothing..
As you know, I made a simulation of his wheel right after reading the web site, what did you do!? Did you jack off on some pr0n on the net then came here and whine like a little bitch!? ..
... Yes you did ...
ReplyDelete>>>>>
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
"I do not believe in simulations, even though I got quite good at wm2d. They are only good for animation purposes, not simulating the real deal. The only accurate simulator is nature."
Yes, sure. That is absolute rubbish - there are thousands of companies all over the world, using computers to simulate physical objects. You are just delaying the inevitable - i.e. that it won't work. You have to keep insisting that 'computers can't simulate it properly', so that you can maintain your belief that it will work, one day...
<<<<<<
Wow, Andre was right about you, what a pathetic attack from your part was that (anon with no identity)!?
You are the one sitting on ass looking at a computer screen, jacking off on some pron all day and whinning on a blog you don't even care about.. Is that what you do with your free time, whine and browse stuff that don't interest you!? Your life must be very pathetic..
Please, shut up or end your miserable existence; or actually do something useful!
LustInBlack, I think you are right this time. I was wrong all along, I feel stupid. :(
ReplyDeleteJohn, please excuse my pathetic existence, I'm gonna kill myself because I serve no purpose in life.
LIB: Debating this guy is useless, as facts do not matter - only algodoo matters, for now, until he thinks he has found some new topic. That won't be long, trust me, as you can see, he's very predicable. But, it must be said, he just made an excellent observation, namely that he's only effective at converting perfectly good bread into (algo)doodoo. That's transmutation and quite a feat. And now he does an even better proposal.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your ideas john.
ReplyDeleteNo offense, i can not see levers pendulums or any device affected by CF driving a wheel, the driver is missing.
The drive came from the wheels center.
Well, the publishing is good, after all...
ReplyDeleteBut, at the same time, I am wondering now how near we are to solving the great Bessler riddle. Are we any wiser now?
Yes, at least, we don't have much negativity around..atleast, we have cleared JC sir's mystery..we have a clear direction to follow with some unexpected clues and explanations..
Have simple and direct clues left by Bessler like peacock's tail, dog's tail, etc., been ignored? I am not sure...
Artful arrangement of weights and levers...this is a great clue, carpenter boy's reference...another evergreen clue..
Now, how do we make further contributions..by sharing such clues, of course. Let us forget about algodoo once for all and go the natural way...because, we are going to tackle one of nature's natural and deepest secrets..and it is important we remain natural and pure..
LIB said: "As you know, I made a simulation of his wheel right after reading the web site, what did you do!? Did you jack off on some pr0n on the net then came here and whine like a little bitch!? .."
ReplyDeleteLose your temper, lose the argument.
As I said, many days and weeks ago, scores of times, John's solution doesn't work.
I see that you, LIB, are also unable to debate FACT. It is an obvious fact that thousands of businesses, universities, researchers, etc. use physical modelling software to accurately model physical objects, including gravity, friction, inertia, you name it.
Only a fool would insist on building real physical models of Bessler's wheel - the only reason all you 'believers' insist on following this time consuming, and obviously stupid, path, is because you know that as soon as you put John's solution into a modelling program, it will fail...
Poor little LIB's ego is collapsing, as is Andre's... How embarrassing.
As predicted, "it" is back - complete with a new "argument", again, as could be foreseen. Now that you've failed in your endless quest to discredit John and everybody else, now we get the sequel of the algadoo-mantra. Which also turns out to be BS - it's a deficient program, for schoolkids. But by all means, our brilliant friend, go buy it, simulate it, and prove us all wrong. But you won't do that, right? The only thing collapsing here, well-documented and for all to see, is your tiny little brain and your colossal ego. Stop making a total moron of yourself and contribute something -anything- useful for a change.
ReplyDeleteAndre, yeah I see what you mean, no constructive argument, just noisy noise and whining like a little crying baby..
ReplyDeleteOh well, that's no wonder he didn't reply to any of my arguments ..
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnn .. WHAAAAAAAannnnnnn.. I want my moooommmmmmyyyyyy... WHAAAAAAANNNN!!!!
ReplyDeleteNo rebuttal of my simple FACTS about simulation software, I see...
ReplyDeleteNo logical arguments.
So are you saying that no companies, universities, researchers, use simulation software to design products, etc. BEFORE actually building them?
John's solution doesn't work. Which is exactly what I predicted.
John failed to reveal his solution umpteen times before this weekend, despite saying he would. Which is exactly what I predicted.
But horror of horrors - this weekend he finally DID reveal his solution, and I was wrong about it THAT ONE TIME...
I won't expect any logical discussion from LIB and his boyfriend...
Don't be jealous anon .. You'll have a boyfriend someday...
ReplyDeleteAnon ... mate come on, I have nothin personal against you. I think there always should be opposite thinking to balance sides, but you are just whining all the time. If you are not happy how things are going, get up and do something, just pls not whining again.
ReplyDeleteAs for the simulation soft am Engineer and had opportunity to work with some. If you want really precise and close to reality results you have to go for really expensive packages. For some tasks should be enough lower priced app like wm2D but in this case when we dont really know what could actulay work as primer its important to be very precise and have something more solid.
Martin, you can't reason with monkeys, or parrot that is .. ;)
ReplyDeleteMartin, I use wm2d all the time for almost everything I wish to build and it's a good approximation of movement, nowhere good enough compared to the infinite precision of reality, but it's good enough to find obvious problems..
I believe it's faster to create a proto in wm2d then create the real wheel.. But I do understand both views (contrary to monkey anon).. Some have more skills in building than working on a computer.. But computer simulation will provide the inventor with a beneficial virtual prototype that can be modified quite easily..
And remember, don't try to reason with monkeys, it's baaaad.. You'll only induce more whining...
You are probably right LIB I just tried, becouse I think that even anon is deep inside just another wheel-addicted member :) but just a bit frustratedthat things didnt pop up from nowhere, or just from siting and staring at monitor.
ReplyDeleteTo your simulation app way of work. I do think that it is on 90 percent the right path. I used wm2d and still use it some times. But I just have my doubts ... imagine if we would have some simlation programs before wing (flying) invetion ..would be app able to simulate it corectly without out understanding of wind mechanics and what cause wings to fly?
Just to speculate what if there is 1percent chance that lifting of weight is caused by strong hit which would make weight to resonate at speacial frequencies which disturb gravity for a while so it appears weight less for a sec. Now... I doubt this would be able to simulate on any app aviable. Am not saying thats the key:) i just have my doubt when it comes to simualtion app.
Overall I have to say John work is really something worth respect. But for now I cant see how this could work, also I have to say am a bit slow later on :) (too much heat from sun)
Lately i came with one idea which seems prety nice ... like all others :), at stage John said about small angels of move i was thinking that is could be something similar, but its not.
Sooo I have to put some effort myself to look at it better and dismis it at the end ..as always.
Hope somebody see what I dnt and could get something out of John design, but my personal tought is there should be constant push pull done by gravity... primover for my is geometry of levers.
Martin
Martin, I just understood exactly why John found this idea so special... The effect of that pumping isn't affecting by wheel direction! Exactly what I was seeking for...
ReplyDeleteAbout simulations, you are right, some effects are pretty hard to be simulated correctly, every fast movement/vibration is incorrectly integrated..
LIB - ad hominem fallacy...
ReplyDelete"If you want really precise and close to reality results you have to go for really expensive packages."
Yes, sure you do. Or rather, you DID, about twenty years ago. In case you hadn't noticed, computer technology has come on a bit since then...
Just more excuses, because you don't want to see that the wheel doesn't work, so by building real wheels, you can constantly keep up hope...
As for me "whining" all the time - disagreeing with the insane 'believers' here is apparently a 'thought crime'. Nothing new.
"imagine if we would have some simlation programs before wing (flying) invetion ..would be app able to simulate it corectly without out understanding of wind mechanics and what cause wings to fly?"
ReplyDeleteStrawman argument. Utter stupidity.
If we had a simulation the same as the ones which exist TODAY, then of course it would show that flight is possible, if it correctly modelled lift, etc.
Are you saying that current modelling software cannot accurately model the 'magic' forces that you are presumably implying are in Bessler's Wheel?
Is John's solution so incredible, that it took EIGHT MONTHS to get this far? It looks very simple to me (which is good), so why the incredibly long wait?
Anon... well ... you are wrong on soo many levels.
ReplyDeleteHowever you look you understand it better than me soo I will not speak to you anymore.
And yeah BTW am 29 and am pretty sure i know what am talking about when it comes to app.
LIB than you have to make a time for me to get me a bit deeper and show me what i overlokked ..coz i do think i missed something
Martin, well on the forums I'll write a reply as soon as I finish my new sim ..
ReplyDeleteConcerning the monkey, well at least on the forum we are able to ban him, he is too coward to put name/nickname here..
Btw, did you realize the monkey do not reply to logical questions?! .. Like, when I asked, why he doesn't move his own fat ass to do something useful!? ..
I think he doesn't realize that we laugh about him, it might not be clear for him to realize that..
Btw Martin, I am 29 also, about 20 years more than the monkey... 8]
"Anon... well ... you are wrong on soo many levels."
ReplyDeleteOh yeah? Which one? I've been parroting the same thing for 8 months, how can I be so WRONG ????
"However you look you understand it better than me soo I will not speak to you anymore."
I will persist, don't worry.
"And yeah BTW am 29 and am pretty sure i know what am talking about when it comes to app.
"
What's the big problem with being 9 years old, I ask you? I am better than you and I am only 9 years of age, turning 9 and a half in two months!
"Btw, did you realize the monkey do not reply to logical questions?! .. Like, when I asked, why he doesn't move his own fat ass to do something useful!? .."
ReplyDeleteLustInBlack it's not becouse I weight 280 pounds that I cannot lift my own ass from my chair. It is becouse I am buried under 300 pounds of cheetos, I am unable to do anything but whine and whine again on subjects that don't interest me..... AT ALL!
Yes! I am THAT Stoopid!
LOLOLLL!!!!
ReplyDeleteWell, I reiterate that we should concentrate on natural imagining or thinking processes for solving the Bessler Riddle. Bessler didn't have or use computers for solving it and yet he did it in those primitive days...
ReplyDeleteJust try to interpret the simple clues of bessler and work on those lines..There is only one design and it is very simple and we really don't need any computer for it..We are just wasting valuable blog time talking about software..it can be easily achieved without the aid of computer..
It is just a proper designing of lever-weight mechanism and its swing path that matters..that's all. 8 levers not 5. One lever-weight designing is sufficient because the rest have to be similar.
As one swings and lands at 3 o clock the other at 6 o clock is hauled up...just like in see-saw. The weights in the lever have to be near the axle in the beginning of every swing and reach around the axle and this cycle goes on. The 8 hitting sounds at 3 o clock is a must.
The problem here is we just don’t care to realize the simple clues and use our brains on the lines stated above…
May I suggest that, John, that it's about time that you close the blog for anons, so we can focus on useful things instead of pointless bickering with those that do not WANT to contribute anything but chaos and mayhem.
ReplyDelete