Now that the excitement which seemed to be building, despite my rather lame attempts to diffuse it, has been somewhat dampened by the disclosure of my theory, I feel I can get back to work on trying to reconstruct Bessler's wheel.
I understand that some people believe that I have been trying to build up some huge PR stunt to promote something and I was completely taken aback to learn this as nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said elsewhere I have no agenda other than trying to build a working version of Bessler's wheel and to find a publisher for my rewritten biography of Bessler. I don't imagine for a moment that any publisher will take on my book unless someone somewhere succeeds in replicating Bessler's wheel and therefore I have no need for PR stunts either large of miniscule.
I have had a response from professor Hal Puthoff which suggests that he is unconvinced by my theory. I cannot put the whole argument up here but his argument against my theory is entirely based on the 'conservative forces' page in which I try to show why gravitywheels do not conflict with the laws of physics. Unfortunately I chose to simplify my case by using a very simple explanation unconnected with parametric oscillation (PO) and he has taken that and argued that the wheels would remain in balance. I have written back and asked him to take into account the PO action, meanwhile I am re-writing that page to try to demonstrate the same argument using 'kiiking' as the basis for it.
JC
I understand that some people believe that I have been trying to build up some huge PR stunt to promote something and I was completely taken aback to learn this as nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said elsewhere I have no agenda other than trying to build a working version of Bessler's wheel and to find a publisher for my rewritten biography of Bessler. I don't imagine for a moment that any publisher will take on my book unless someone somewhere succeeds in replicating Bessler's wheel and therefore I have no need for PR stunts either large of miniscule.
I have had a response from professor Hal Puthoff which suggests that he is unconvinced by my theory. I cannot put the whole argument up here but his argument against my theory is entirely based on the 'conservative forces' page in which I try to show why gravitywheels do not conflict with the laws of physics. Unfortunately I chose to simplify my case by using a very simple explanation unconnected with parametric oscillation (PO) and he has taken that and argued that the wheels would remain in balance. I have written back and asked him to take into account the PO action, meanwhile I am re-writing that page to try to demonstrate the same argument using 'kiiking' as the basis for it.
JC
I for one do think your parametric oscillation concept certainly has merit, all the more since a simple experiment proves its validity - as does the sport 'kiiking'. Maybe it's not the whole answer, Bessler was a cunning fox. The more I think of it the more I am in awe what a feat this man accomplished in his time without any modern tools and materials, or even a good understanding of certain scientific principles. As every disadvantage has it's advantages, he sure wasn't hampered or discouraged by the Hallowed Laws of Thermodynamics. Perhaps you need one more pendulum mechanism in there, possibly like the Melkovic pendulum embodiment which has shown significant amplification of mechanical power (COP>10). I am however quite sure you are on the right track. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeletePerhaps professor Hal Putoff can construct a computer model and produce evidence either way. (That's the way professors do things - not by spending weeks building physical models.)
ReplyDeleteAs many of us have said many times (when we aren't being censored for telling the truth) it will never work...
Yes John, don't lose sight of your goal,it will come to you one way or another.If someone else solves the wheel then at least you and Bessler will be vindicated and the the publicists and movie makers will be knocking at your door.
ReplyDeleteAnon, Professor Puthoff (with "h") doesn't need proof that kiiking works. He knows that, since the sport works. So there's no reason why it wouldn't work in a drive mechanism, since there's no difference. Indeed, you have said many times that it would never work and no doubt you will repeat that ad nauseam. That's ok, but it doesn't help much, as you can perhaps imagine. Maybe you can contribute something -anything- that would help. Other than suggesting Algoodoo again, as that program (according to those that actually used it) is not accurate enough. The truth is not censored here, mate. BS and foul language is.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would like to compete on a level playing field,..without computer aids. I won't have Bessler saying that we cheated.
ReplyDeleteLIB: I found the antigravity/sound nodal experiments I was crowing about yesterday, including the formating of spinning spheres at nodal points in liquids. They are by Stan Deyo. He does have some intriguing experiments you may want to watch. There are 8 videos, this is the link to part 1 - use the links to watch them one by one:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP4zQ4R8vJg
Enjoy :)
formating=formation. Sorry for the typo.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Puthoff argues his case mathematically, anon, before he commits to either simulation or workshop prototype. In this case he will only accept the evidence of a working proof of principle device, so simulation wouldn't be necessary to prove the device is possible.
ReplyDeleteI accept that many people believe that my theory is wrong and that therefore any device based on parametric oscillation will fail. I believe I will proved correct eventually.
You said, " As many of us have said many times (when we aren't being censored for telling the truth) it will never work..." I wonder how you can be so certain when even Puthoff is not that certain.
JC
JC
> As many of us have said many times (when we aren't being censored for telling the truth) it will never work...
ReplyDeleteWho else than you is a monkey!? I wonder, because you are the only one to mind that trolls around..
Let us not indulge in mockery...Everyone is important here as long as something useful is being contributed by him..if we are not serious about Bessler work then nothing can be achieved..anons should stick to ethics and we should also realize that even too anons are equally important in the whole scheme..
ReplyDeleteBessler came up with a working wheel which used the principle of overbalancing of wheel with weights which relied on gravity, mainly..
Since we can't think of any mechanism which would work using the above principle alone we seem to deviate by resorting to other ways like oscillations, etc., which could complicate the whole issue...
There is one mechanism which we still haven't figured out yet entirely...it is very simple..it works under the above stated principle..it is the same one achieved by Bessler..there is a trick involved..gravity has to be tricked..it is nothing to do with parametric oscillations....it is clearly stated through Bessler's simple clues...I am afraid we are going astray..
I can make out two points where we seem to have deviated from..not sticking to simple clues and complicating the matter by thinking of peizo effect, vibrations, etc.,
When gravity is tricked with a simple, never thought of mechanism, we get enough torque to drive the wheel with desired effect...
Thats the way!...stay on track, there is a trick, or a phenomena that pertains only to a wheel environment.
ReplyDeleteIt's not magical,mysterious or spiritual.It's just plain ordinary stratigic physics, but it does involve movement for the sake of movement, as Bessler said....all the best. There's nothing like competition!
I must be very thankful to the almighty for, at least, there is a single soul to understand what I am trying to say...thanks a lot, Trevor...
ReplyDeleteSuresh, more people understand what you mean than you apparently think. What we (aldo) try to do is to bounce ideas and concept off each other, this may lead to new insights or ideas that might work. And that, after all, is what we're all after. So we're not ignoring you, my friend, to the contrary... ;)
ReplyDeleteAndre, I think what depresses him most is when we resort to name calling and I don't blame him.
ReplyDeleteI noted that the previous post had a record number of comments, probably because they were the most constructive yet.
Trevor, you are right of course. Name calling is extremely depressing, and the most depressing of all is the fact that it is completely counterproductive. So yes, I can imagine our friend Suresh doesn't like that - I don't like it either. Although there are many good, honest, hardworking people on this planet who are doing their utmost to change it for the good, and for everybody, the Internet seems to attract also the worst of them. I will never understand that attitude, even if I live to a hundred years. I've said it a few times before, but little has changed in that respect since Bessler's time.
ReplyDeleteThat makes three of us who agree and John that makes four. It's very easy to fall into the trap.We have to guard against proffesional jealousy,it will destroy you.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to know how many guys are actually in the process of building a wheel at this moment.
ReplyDeleteIs there anyway we can find out.
For example I do. A new hope with a principle using a central swinging element to shift weights.
ReplyDeleteStick to documenting Bessler. Document him inside and out...
ReplyDeleteTrevor...Most of the visitors to this blog are connected with bessler wheel...But how many are seriously involved in building the actual wheel...only a few..and how many are on the right track...you can make out from their views...not even a handful....when people talk of different things like tesla, you know how much they differ from bessler...
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to bounce differing ideas now as stated by Andre Sir,(no offence) ...it could complicate the matter..exchange of our concepts can help if the ideas are within the actual concept..
We have already reached a point now and we only need to exchange ideas on how to make weights fly light during climb up or to interpret and execute the simple direct clues left by bessler...
We should work within the right principle..so much of blog time is used up on irrelevant things..I was thrilled on hearing about sigmoid curve from JC sir..but again we seem to drift...and anons complicate further by useless talk sometimes and in this way we sail away in the wrong direction..
I hope it is clear now...I don't mean to upset anyone...all are important..every contribution is invincible..
We could build the wheel much sooner than expected if only we shared the right things...
My humble apologies Sir!....I just find it stimulating to know how much interest exists in the wheels progress.
ReplyDelete"In this case he will only accept the evidence of a working proof of principle device, so simulation wouldn't be necessary to prove the device is possible."
ReplyDeleteSo whatever Professor Puthoff wants, should decide how everybody else on the planet designs things?
Simulation would have saved you a lot of hassle.
Somebody above (I can't remember who) said that kiiking works, and that therefore your solution could work.
Nobody denied that kiiking works. I certainly did not. The slight problem is that you have no power source for the movement of the 'kiiker', and therefore the wheel won't work.
It was my dear friend Andre...
ReplyDelete"Anon, Professor Puthoff (with "h") doesn't need proof that kiiking works. He knows that, since the sport works. So there's no reason why it wouldn't work in a drive mechanism, since there's no difference."
Duh. "there's no reason why it wouldn't work in a drive mechanism" - except that in this case, there is no source of power for the 'kiiker', and therefore it cannot work.
Anon 19:56, then you should perhaps read the concepts as documented by JC better, see www.gravitywheel.com. Gravity is the source of power - the primary lever and the shifter lever act in pairs. The shifter lever moves the primary weight: kiiking. It's a gravity-powered mechanism, after all. And as you can see in the pictures and the video, that mechanism performs it's intended function. Now please change the "it cannot work, it will never work" record, please. Your opinion in that regard is, mildly put, already very well documented. If you're interested in this stuff, since you keep coming back, try something constructive and/or positive.
ReplyDeleteIf it will be of any help to confirm this,
ReplyDeleteseveral months ago I built a pendulum that required virtually no power to bob it up and down.
By suspending it on a crank on a counter balanced flywheel. This I thought would be an easy way to get the pendulum to swing.
When I turned the flywheel to syncronise with the pendulum swing it did indeed increase it's swing dramatically even to 12o'clock but with every increase I noticed it required a corresponding input of torque.I gave up and shelved the experiment which showed you can't get something for nothing.
This was all just before I discovered ...THE PRINCIPLE., that changed every thing.
Well come on Trevor, tell us more! Or are you just here to tease us.
ReplyDeleteBy all means, Trevor... I am all ears!
ReplyDeleteIn his previous post, Trevor has given us an astounding clue...movement for the sake of movement, etc.,
ReplyDeleteOnly a guy who is on the right track can fully understand it..A little more clue and it would all be a give away...He has been working on this since he was 10 and he deserves the rights..
He is not teasing us anon but stimulating us rather..I am sure he is near the truth and he is giving us a wakeup call..All the best Trevor.
John if parametric oscillation is feeding your wheel then it isn't gravity, is it? And what energy source is feeding the parametric oscillation? Are you gonna try to say gravity? I think you are and this is a dog endlessly chasing its tail, only without food and water the dog falls down dead John.
ReplyDeleteGentlemen, if I don’t recall wrong Bessler made hundreds of prototypes before he succeeded with his wheel, Apologia Poetica is full of them, so , I thing, that a machine that not include all Bessler’s clues, won’t work, thus the machine must resemble a peacock, a machine that not have eight weights at least, acting in pairs, that not have broken columns, cylinder weights drilled lengthwise, etc, won’t work, said this not trying to destroy anyone's illusions; I think this because I don’t believe Bessler have been a liar, so I think excepting your always better opinion, that we should focus in conceive a machine that include all Bessler’s clues before any attempt to make a prototype, trying to make prototypes that not include all the clues, will be a wasting of time and effort, would be like walking the same paths Bessler painfully traveled before his succeed.
ReplyDelete>
ReplyDeleteHe is not teasing us anon but stimulating us rather..I am sure he is near the truth and he is giving us a wakeup call..All the best Trevor.
<
'Come On' ... I've been on besslerwheel for a while and there are about 600'000 claims of members that know the principle since they are 4 years old and the mafia came and destroyed their idea and blebleble..
If you come here teasing and run away when asked questions, you should as well just say nothing.
And if you come here with absolutely no valuable input, you should as well shut up.
What's the big deal guys!? .. If I had a working wheel I wouldn't play it sissy, I would build non-stop, I would leverage my position and conquer..
You have unlimited power..
The Gov kills for power, destroys nature for power, go to war for power.. You have to fight your way up, or you shouldn't play at all.
Doesn't matter if you have a working wheel or not, what matters is changing how this stupid world works.
Lucious...you are absolutely right...great.
ReplyDeleteanon: 06:15....There are some people who take us along the path to success..and Trevor is one of them...
Last ten years I went thru massive amount of combination's,configuration,s and made devices which did not work.Yes,gravity is source of power.
ReplyDeleteOne way ticket(down).You need return ticked!
In a "moment" of need you must disrupt gravity.
In my own reading of BESSLER's books, I found something wonderful.I will start practically experimenting not the wheel,but on the nucleus.
I am realistic,if you don't try,how do you now?!
I like something DrWhat said recently here, citing one of JB's clues. The tail of the peacock. I elaborated a bit on that at the time, and it made me think it over some more. Imagine a slotted axle, every slot elongated and piercing the axle completely. In every slot there's a lever with a weight, secured by a small bolt so it won't fall through vertically. The weights are pierced lengthwise and can be adjusted as required. The (steel or wood) levers go right through the axle, sticking out the other end, say, 10 centimeters. Seated in their slots, all levers (in the 12 o'clock position) are spread out somewhat, some of them nearing the 1 o'clock position. Thus they resemble a "forest" of levers, resembling the tail of a peacock. Maybe there should be 8 of them. Each is mounted on a ratchet mechanism, keeping them upright until they are allowed to fall. They are only allowed to fall one by one (or two, "acting in pairs", all this within short intervals) up to the 5 o'clock position. There they are stopped, thus transferring their potential kinetic energy to torque on the axle. So far so good, the main wheel starts to turn as a result.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem has always been the "return ticket" as vincent calls it - raising the weights back up. We always assumed a full rotation to be needed for that. Why? Now assume that we don't want the levers to rotate around all the way back to the 12 o'clock position. We don't want equilibrium and counterbalance after all. In other words, we don't allow them to reach even the 6 o'clock position. Behind the main axle at the 9 o'clock position is a drum mechanism, driven by the axle with a gear and/or a pendulum mechanism to maximize torque on the drum. There is plenty of room for that since the levers will never reach lower than 5 o'clock, so a pendulum can easily swing from left to right and back. An overbalanced so-called 2-stage mechanical oscillator implementation of this has already been shown to be very powerful, amplifying the input power by a factor of 12, but the swinging bob can be easily maintained. We shall need that power because what follows shall need a lot of leverage. The drum has pins on it like the drum of a old fashioned mechanical music box. These pins catch the back ends of the fallen lever(s) sticking out through the other end of the axle and push them down hard, causing the ratchet to unlock and the levers to fly back upwards where they are locked in their slots until they are allowed again to fall. The peacock's tail is restored and the wheel (and levers) never reach equilibrium. The wheel is also always overbalanced this way, and the maximum speed (not torque) automatically governed by the pendulum, so it will never reach great rotational speeds but lots of torque on the axle. The falling weights hit the pendulum bob and keep that going as well, while at the same time transferring their kinetic energy in the form of torque to the wheel. This is a relatively simple mechanism. The only more difficult thing needed are the ratchets per lever that keep the weights in the 12 o'clock position, until they are allowed to start their fall, and the cycle repeats.
Guys, I'm not going to run away.I'm not quite there.I still have to find a way to interface the prime mover, which is kinetic energy,with a mechanism to convert it into potential energy,using weights or springs.
ReplyDeleteLets face it I think this wheel is going to turn out to be a very noisy wheel,more on the lines of percussion. Remember the anvil.
So acoustics, vibration and/or deformation after all?
ReplyDeleteGuys please tell it as it is, you have hope not the principle.
ReplyDeleteI would say,single continuous distinct hammer blows.The wheel is greedy and it has to be fed.
ReplyDeleteSomething heavy, like a hammer or a weight, slams on some (piston?) mechanism that transfers the kinetic force of the blows to the wheel? I wonder if that would be the primary (or sole?) motive mechanism, or some way to exploit (optimize) the potential kinetic energy from something else, like weights that are falling anyway. Like JB said, the wheel is greedy, needs to be fed, in other words we must maximize the energy budget and optimize the utilization of this energy as much as possible. Overbalancing alone likely won't do the trick - the energy budget from that method is too small. So this would definitely add energy. Pumping the swing of the weights is another way, which would a third motive force. What do you think, Trevor, is this mechanism in your design the sole prime mover? It has to be mighty powerful, then... I can imagine you may have trouble interfacing -or converting- those blows to torque. And it has to be simple. Intriguing.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps the hammerblows perform the task of the drum I speculated upon, lifting the weights back to the ready-to-fall "peacock" 12 o'clock position at the same time?
It is what Bessler refered to as the lively children.It is the sole prime mover and is excited purely by the revolutions.They are not the potential energy storers.That can be done with other smaller weights or springs.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting... I will need some time to digest that. Thanks Trevor.
ReplyDeleteRemember the alimo Trevor, and remember that you are stupid.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are so clever to see it.
ReplyDeleteJohn ,would you please delete the anon. option from these posts. Every person who posts comments on this site should be accountable in identity because it is honourable.
ReplyDelete" It is what Bessler refered to as the lively children.It is the sole prime mover and is excited purely by the revolutions.They are not the potential energy storers.That can be done with other smaller weights or springs."
ReplyDeleteReally hounorable Trevor. A whole lot of convoluted, meaningless words. But it makes you sound and probably feel important doesn't it?
Anon: Atleast, Trevor is trying to contribute something and if you are so rude he may retract.
ReplyDeleteAs I had said earlier, only a person who is on the right track can understand Trevor's hints.
You may not believe, but Trevor is much closer to the mystery than anyone else..But he can't reveal in a more simple way as it would amount to leaking the entire secret..the hard earned one..
This world is strange..some people simply criticize a honest person who is giving out breathtaking clues to unveil a very mystifying story that had happened some 300 years back..
Movement for the sake of movement within the wheel...this is a great clue recently exposed by Trevor...what does it mean? Everyone can't understand..and just because of that we can't call anyone names..
In other words it means rotations for the sake of revolutions...
Thank you Suresh...I can' give out the secret of the principle until I have a working wheel to demonstrate to you guys.
ReplyDeleteTrevor and Suresh..
ReplyDeleteSorry guys, but I have to give anon some credit on this one. How can Suresh say that Trevor is on the right track, when in fact, nobody, not anyone of you have a working wheel!?
There is no such thing as the right track. There is no such thing as doing it the right way.. You got the wheel, or not ..
I've seen litteraly hundred of people saying exactly the same thing as you too.. And I mean EXACTLY as you say it ..
I don't want to put you down, but in your place, I'd give data, I'd give simulation, I'd give a mechanism.. Not pure speculation and hints and tips and supposition and "you got it my friend, you are wonderful" ..
Follow my path, follow the path of Gregory, follow the path of John, follow the path of path_finder.. These are one of the few that share their knowledge.. If only everybody did that, we'd have the wheel working right now.
And anon, you are still a monkey.
OK thats it, I'm out of here....JUST WATCH THE MEDIA.
ReplyDeleteBeen there - done that - more than once!
ReplyDeleteJC
Trevor asks if I would remove the anon comment option. I can and I have considered it several times but in the end I decided not to.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that people can comment anonymousl;y if they wish, even if I have to delete them occasionally. But also just because they have to register a name does not remove their anon. status really, does it? Anyone cam make up a name and comment.
But I will continue to review the situation and I might change my decision later.
JC
I'm sorry I'm a bit Puthoff.
ReplyDelete>> OK thats it, I'm out of here....JUST WATCH THE MEDIA.
ReplyDeleteI won't hold my breath.
Thanks Trevor for proving you like to toss off meaningless words.
ReplyDeleteOk LIB, I'm a monkey, but your a better swinger; you love im, you hate im, you love im, you hate im, and I guess at the moment yur stuck on you love im.
ReplyDeleteHave to say I totaly agree with LIB.
ReplyDeleteNobody knows how that thing really works ...when reall build will rotate itself than ..only than you can call it right track.
There are really no experts here ..only more experienced builderes of no runners ..thats all.
Martin
PS: I just do realyl dig your style of humour.:)
ReplyDeleteGuys just face it with more reallistic point of view ..it would help soo much more.
When you accept you are more likely again wrong you are more open to ask whateer could help you to reserch your idea further.