Thursday, 23 September 2010

Wheel update and an awsome trebuchet.

Well I'm still moving stuff out and getting rid of accumulated trash from thirty years! Still unable to work on my new wheel, but as soon as I can I'll be back!  Since I have little to report about my wheel work, I thought I'd go off at a bit of a tangent here.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I've lived here, near Warwick, for over 30 years and yet until this week I had never visited one of the finest castles in England - Warwick castle - and it's just two and half miles from my house. Begun almost a thousand years ago, it's an amazing place and well worth the visit. But for me the best thing is, they have this huge medieval trebuchet that has to be seen to be believed.

It's not the biggest one around, but its still impressive.  It weighs in at 22 tons, measures 20 feet in height if you include the throwing arm and can hurl a missile 75 feet high and a thousand feet distant. It takes a small team of 4 or 5 guys walking in a giant hamster wheel at least 15 minutes just to wind up the massive block of sandstone which supplies the power. To be close by when it fires is awsome! This particular one - and they have others - was designed and built by Dr Peter Vemming from The Mediaeval Centre in Nykobing, Denmark, using notes and drawings from the 13th century, so it seems to be pretty authentic. I think that if they could design and build such a truly inspiring machine more than seven hundred years ago, they certainly had the know-how and the ability to built a puny gravitywheel without any problem. But of course they didn't know how! And neither do we ....yet!

There are other equally robust machines at the castle, and you can tell just by looking at them that they can unleash some fearsome energy and are just waiting for the chance!  This one I haven't seen fired yet but it just looks cool.  I'm sure that the builders of these amazing machines would have been able to build a giant gravitywheel had they known how and I can imagine something with say a twenty foot diameter being turned by heavy stone balls, able to pump thousands of gallons of water, or even raise the twenty ton rock in the trebuchet.

Anyway I shall give some updates here as soon as I have begun work on my wheel - and as always, confidence remains high.  I am still utterly convinced that 'kiiking' holds the solution, although I'm aware that most people think I'm way off target.  In the end only the proof of principle demonstrated in a working model will convince the world.

Mean while I shall keep the image of the trebuchet in mind to both inspire me and remind me what people could accomplish seven hundred years ago, here on this tired old island.

JC




42 comments:

  1. JC sir...I agree with you that great things were built in the past...and some of them really can't be replicated in the present times...but as
    far as the Gravity wheel is concerned, we now have fairly good knowledge of how bessler had designed it...anyone who fully understands bessler's simple clues can also visualize the internal mechanism...

    Some of us do have the know-how and the capability of how to successfully build a gravity wheel..but the right time hasn't arrived yet...there are so many hindrances,hitches and glitches...directly affecting our attempts to build one...we need to consider so many things here...everyone couldn't become a roman emperor or a world conqueror, for that matter...one has got to be destined for that...even bessler's destiny was not good and he could not reveal it finally...

    It takes a lot of time too...Bessler knew much more than the gravity wheel he built..he had a true vision...he had a dream..where it was revealed to him...he believed that god had chosen him..he was truly a multi-facetted philosopher, a genius, a legend..

    Today no one has time for all this...everyone is selfish....you can't find a true person like newton or bessler today...

    Many of us have wandered off from the right track and will never be successful in building the wheel...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kiiking holds a part of the solution...Yes.

    Oscillator theory described by Andre sir also holds another part of the solution..

    Active weights described by Trevor truly holds yet another great solution, no doubt..

    Planets' orbit and their motion around the Sun too has a vital clue on the wheel design..

    Solutions, solutions and solutions are being offered from time to time...but are we anywhere near the final outcome?

    No...and this is because we aren't accommodating these clues in the proper basic internal structure which is yet to be formed by any of us..

    Bessler has been magnanimous enough to leave a few vital clues on this basic internal structure very openly for discerning eyes in his 141 drawings...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Suresh, I think I understand your frustrations. But it IS a fact, in my view, that this bouncing ideas off each other is the (fast-track) way to come up with sufficient mechanisms (and ideas) to come to a final solution. We have to, like Bessler, keep thinking out of the box. Not in 2 dimensions (the plane of the wheel) but in several dimensions. Personally I am convinced that the Bessler implementation of the wheel requires several concurrent and synergistically operating mechanisms. Timing is an issue and a potential nightmare, so it should be simple. For example, my idea of a 2-stage oscillating pendulum driving the wheel at right angles (or used to reset/reposition the levers and weights from 3 or 4 o'clock to 12 o'clock) are examples of unconventional things that (together) may do the trick, as they all tap that free but relatively weak resource: gravity. I know, that's only my (subjective) opinion. But I think this way we'll get somewhere eventually. Don't forget that the great man himself needed 10 years or more of hard labor to come up with a working solution. We simply shouldn't give up, keep our cool, and try to keep extracting data and ideas from his clues. It's quite easy to come up with working solutions in software - believe me, I had several "successes" this way - but building it is an entirely different matter as there are so many unknown variables. Don't be discouraged :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Andre sir...I agree with your input..it surely takes a lot of time..

    ReplyDelete
  5. All good things are worth waiting for but hear this,...Perpetual motion will become a reality this very year!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trevor good...but should we again call it by the name PM as this is the very name that scientific community doesn't accepts as it contradicts conservation laws...we should understand that it is a gravity converter and name it accordingly..

    ANYWAY...THANKS...I LIKE YOUR SPIRIT..

    ReplyDelete
  7. In many points I agree with Andre.
    I am working on the princip,and it has noting to do with the wheel,and at this moment any pendulums
    does not fit in to my equation,that may change later.Only (ONE) Bessler's clue did put me on the right direction according to mine mathematical calculations .The sooner we put an end to Bessler's nightmares the better.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes I agree with you that we must call it PM.Maybe should also add that it is perpetual motion with POWER.or,PMPM,orPMPW.
    Most scientists don't understand that Perpetual motion has always been with us because of enertia,but perpetual motion with power is a different thing alltogether.
    It is precisely because of Newtons laws that it can be accomplished.So their argument that it cannot be patented because it contradicts the laws of physics is incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The WORD PERPETUAL MOTION,should be deleted from
    dictionaries,books,etc.It is stupid,ridiculous and
    fantasy.Why to apostrophize, something none existent.It is irrelevant to practical reality.
    Certain sections in laws of physics is perverse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Vincent do I take it that you don't believe that perpetual motion or perpetual motion with power is not possible? If so why do you bother with this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Excuse the double negative.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trevor,I do believe in continuous movement and true physical principles.
    But,revolving wheel for all eternity???

    ReplyDelete
  13. Vincent/Trevor..certain things in nature are in perpetual motion..like in an atom...the electrons in orbit around the nucleus or the protons...or take for example the solar system...the planets around the Sun...So we really shouldn't think of foregoing the term PM..

    The wheel can be made to rotate perpetually by using gravity and this will continue till the parts of the wheel are worn out...to some extent this can be called as PM..But the scientific community realizes that PM means something that should go on and on permanently without external influence...and in this context, our wheel really cannot be called a PM...correct me if I am wrong..

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are two categories of Perpetual motion,One that cannot give out any power which already exists and one that can supply power as well.
    Bessler's wheel is the latter,lets be clear on that.I firmly believe that the latter is definitely possible because I have proved it for myself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Agreed...and now we are all going to work on the Bessler wheel...and we know that it is possible..

    I wonder why Vincent is negative about bessler...

    Bessler was very much true and his wheel too...just because we are not able to replicate or understand it we feel that it is not possible...

    What do you think Trevor...how long it could take...can we really make it...where are we erring...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bessler was an accomplished clock maker. He had learned the art of precision timing and engineering. We just have to perfect the mechanics to the point where we can co-ordinate the pendulums so we can reap the gravitational energy.
    I have so far learned how to extract energy from a pendulum without robbing from its swing.This is important because it enables the wheel to keep turning.All it takes now is to co-ordinate the pendulum pairs with the exact precision timing required.
    This takes time to develope with a conserted effort to keep focussed.
    It's a simple mechanism to look at but the principle is quite deep.A liitle while longer and you might be pleasantly surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You seem to have progressed well, Trevor...But it also appears there are miles to go...and this also goes to tell why no one could achieve it so far..

    Anyway, once achieved, we will name it as Gravity Harvester, or Gravity mill, Gravity wheel, Gravity Converter, Gravity engine...

    ReplyDelete
  18. I agree with Trevor that the (potential) nightmare here clearly is in the timing, and yet simplicity of the sync mechanism. It's fantastic if you have found a way to harvest the considerable energy available from parametric oscillations from pendulum(s) without influencing the swing - that's the secret. A 2-stage oscillator can do that if you harvest at right angles of the output beam. I gather the mechanisms/gears that move the "planets" would be part of this, and probably also used to keep the swing going. Hmmm...fascinating. As for the name, I'd say that the name Bessler-Collins Gravity Converter would be appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Andre Sir....So we need to consider again seriously the two stage oscillator...

    I would request you to pls once again in a very easy to understand way explain how the two stage oscillator can be incoroporated in the wheel...

    Your earlier language was more technical and difficult to grasp...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Suresh, perhaps better than I can describe what mechanisms are required, this guy on youtube has been experimenting (with some interesting results) and doing what I mean using pendulums and a large 2-stage oscillator. Start with this link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBE0d484SFM
    and work your way up to the newest ones. If you look at the older experiments outside with the huge oscillator it also makes pretty clear how powerful such a thing can be - and what little input energy is required to keep it going. He should use 2 "escapements" (as he calls it) on both sides and couple them. Those would be the "planets". The pendulum(s) in the Bessler variety would pivot on the axle of the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Interesting of course...thanks..I think oscillators are nothing but the pendulums in the bessler wheel we keep referring....the only thing is that eight such oscillators are believed to have been used in the BW...

    Perhaps, we could also derive more information from the simple garden swing..I agree it is simple things such as this that provides us with the inspiration like the falling apple did to Newton...

    Coming to BW....Bessler built several wheels and all of them were large ones...3 feet and up..and they were not very slim..they were very heavy...made scratching noises...

    Weights hitting on one side tells that weights were swinging..eight sounds heard every revolution tells about 8 weights..all very active...

    Analysis of above information hints that the mechanism can't be too complicated...

    bessler's first wheel was smaller and turned one side always without requiring any push..

    If we could make the weights remain on one side always then we are sure to achieve success..

    Bessler has very cleverly utilized the power of the swinging weights and the advantages of the lever principle...

    ReplyDelete
  22. As I said before Bessler was an accomplished clockmaker and there are very few people who have the available time and patience to stay focussed long enough to intergrate all the intrinsic mechanisms that go to make up all the facets of a working wheel.
    If they are put together with the finnesse required these are; Pendulum enertial swing, Spring tension for enertial storage,Centrifugal force that has a two fold purpose,and finally gravitational drive from the prime weights.
    You can see why precise timing is required and why it has taken so long,and those who are greedy would not have had the patience to accomplish it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Considering that the centrifugal force has a two-fold application and purpose, that is, indeed, five mechanisms or key principles.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Trevor, are you considering a spring-loaded wheel in a wheel type of mechanism for storage of the torque of the falling pendulum? If so, you could perhaps consider a sliding (moving) axle to hasten/speed-up the fall of the (inverted?) pendulum. This should result of more available torque stored in the internal spring-loaded wheel. Just my 2c.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Although I become rather skeptical of overunity systems especially when religion is thrown into the equation, I thought you guys might be interested in the following video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyuUFfvilzc
    It's about WITTS, an organization that claims to have several so-called overunity (COP or Coefficient of Performance > 1) systems developed. They interview an engineer here that witnessed an overunity electromagnetic system and, more interesting to us, a small, working gravity motor that kept itself going while outputting a small quantity of available torque. There's more videos too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. As far as I can understand, I don't think any storage of energy is actually required in the bessler wheel...the pendulums swing, weights land at the far side of the wheel at 3 o clock, and the wheel turns..a continuous process..it's as simple as that..

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry Suresh, I don't think it's that simple.Bessler did warn that those who think the passive positioning of weights will make the wheel turn will be disapointed.His referance to the words 'a seer sees,and a buyer buys' meant that there is a tranferance of energy from one system to another,or from kinetic to potential energy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Trevor, I agree. His words actually were that he learned this the hard way - overbalancing alone doesn't do the trick (which is completely logical - there's not enough available power in such a design). Literally he said: "Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through bitter experience."
    The more I think of it, the more I am convinced that 5 mechanisms need to be used, all synchronized. This also explains the many "hidden 5's clues" John discovered. Trevor is on the right track with this, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Trevor...you are right...there is a transfer of energy not storage...from potential to kinetic and not from kinetic to potential..

    I also agree just passive weights won't do...the weights have to be specially designed and they will have to remain very active....motion for the sake of motion as mentioned by you earlier...

    When so many weights swing and remain active enough power is available…as other forces like centrifugal, centrepetal and inertia are involved too…

    Eight sounds were heard...indicating 8 weights...they acted in pairs...it has be either with 2 weights basically with a maximum of 8 wts stated by you earlier, for smooth and reliable power....

    Tell me how can all these 8 wts be accommodated in five mechanisms...

    If all the above differences can be resolved then only we can think of being on the right track..otherwise, take it from me dear, it's going to be another 300 years...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Perhaps the five mechanisms refer to five processes or facets that each weight goes through for the end result,so there really are still only eight main weights!
    In anycase I don't remember there being any referance to five.Can you quote that from Bessler's words?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not from bessler....but Andre sir and JC sir maintain that it is five mechanism.....

    If I am correct trevor, eight lever-weight mechanisms can be accommodated inside the wheel without them getting entangled...

    They are to be fitted at equidistant space..this agrees with the bessler clues and clarifies the eight sounds heard..

    ReplyDelete
  32. Maybe Sir can say how he arrived at five. I only know 'Gimme five.'

    ReplyDelete
  33. It cannot refer to the number of weight segments because the weights work in pairs so come on Sir John how about it?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I don't agree - 8 sounds doesn't necessarily dictate 8 weights. It simple indicates 8 noises. There are myriads of mechanisms possible that can generate all kinds of noises. Scraping, moving noises have been reported as well, that could point to a moving pivot, for example. I think we should focus not on the number of noises, but on the basic principles required - whether they make noises or not. The number 5 repeatedly came up whilst decoding Besslers clues, as documented by JC, in fact so often it can't be some coincidence. The number 5 is significant, and my guess it's the number of mechanisms required on order to achieve a working machine. Trevor already pointed out what these mechanisms likely are, I think. I suggest we try to think of a (simple!) system of gears, for example, that synchronizes all mechanisms and resembles planets in the solar system. I have a hunch that such gears should be driven by a inverted pendulum, perhaps with moving (movable) pivot attached to the axle of the wheel (to achieve more power). The potential energy of the falling pendulum(s) is stored in some spring loaded mechanism (wheel in a wheel?) and then transferred to drive the main wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  35. What ever happens it has to be swift and direct because there is very little time to restore the weights to the top once they reach the bottom,anything between one and three swings.I wonder why John is so quiet,I hope it's because he is working on his wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There is only one success wheel design and that is the Bessler's design and till we realize that this saga could go on...

    It's not that it is going to be impossible but it is going to take a lot of efforts...This success design is going to be very simple when realized and we are going to sigh like Karl at its simplicity and ask the same old question as to why no one had thought of it before...Believe me, this design doesn't exist any where now and once someone hits upon it he is going to build it immediately without any fuss ...
    It's a free movement design....gravity is very efficiently converted...the same gravity that helps the swings and the descent of the weights also aids their ascent...friction is negligible...even though the mechanism is very simple the accuracy has to be high..once built it would go on without needing any attention for a long time...this is the movement that has been described as being wondrous by bessler...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sorry guys, I am busy but not unfortunately on my wheel. I am having some work done on one area of my house and am having to relocate the contents of two rooms and throwing away a lot of things I seem to have collected over several years and it taking up most of my time. My workshop is stuffed full with old furniture which I'm selling piece by piece. I hope to be able to get back to work on my wheel just as soon as my workshop is clear again.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have always been slightly sceptical about the report of "the sound of about eight weights which landed gently on the side towards which the wheel turned". I'm sure that's what Fischer von Erlach heard, but the fact that he included the word "about" seems to me to be rather vague when taking into account his otherwise seemingly accurate report. If he knew without a doubt that he heard eight weights falling then I would have thought he would not have included the word "about". It suggests to me that he wasn't sure how may he heard.

    Don't forget that the wheel made a tremendous clattering noise when turning. At about two seconds per turn of the wheel, you would need to be counting four weights per second landing on the side of the wheel and if there is a lot of other noises caused by, for instance, the other set of mechanisms which turn in the opposite direction (because it was two way wheel)there is probably enough noise to confuse anyone.

    So although "the sound of about eight weights landing" looks useful I do not take it as a definite clue.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  39. I only suggest that there were five mechanisms which included two weights each because that is what seems to be implied by Bessler's constant reiteration of the number five and five. Five mechanims, each with a pair of weights.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sir..Let me add my version which also could be right...
    Eight sounds heard could also be from the initial wheel bessler built(uni-directional one)
    Weights acted in pairs..could mean that each lever carried just one weight and the second weight refers to the weight attached to the lever opposite to this..(e.g. the weight at 3 o clock would have its pair at 9 oclock..)
    The idea here is that one weight would lift the other weight on the opposite side..(like two kids on a seesaw..)
    In total 8 wts could be arranged in a wheel and this answers the 8 gently falling sound..
    Fischer couldn't have mistaken the 8 sounds which was quite distinct from other noises..otherwise he would have stated it as 7 to 8 wts..
    When bessler lived only 8 planets were known..I am not very sure if bessler referred to the planets in this context..
    A wheel can be equally divided into 8 segments and fitted with 8 lever mechanisms to make it rotate and provide power in a stable manner as agreed by Trevor...
    If only 5 mechanisms had existed then there wouldn't have been the mention of 8 weights..
    Only 5 sounds or even 10 sounds would have been heard..

    We need to really get this straightened if we are to progress...and these are entirely my opinions and not really binding on anyone..correct me if I have erred..

    ReplyDelete
  41. I see John, so that means there are ten major weights.That makes more sense.
    What the eye witnesses heard could have been plus-minus eight weights hitting the side because ocasionally a weight would not have reached sufficient swing to be ready to be caught up.
    I got this impreassion from his words when he said "one or another weight would exert its force on the wheel."

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nooope.

    Kinetic to potential.

    2 mechanism.

    ReplyDelete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...