Wednesday, 27 January 2010

The current build and why five?

Here is an update on the current build.

This model has presented some problems which I'm trying to sort out. It is a constant learning process and my latest revelation has explained another aspect of Bessler's clues which I had thought I'd already understood, more or less to my own satisfaction, previously. However I found that I could not make the mechanisms operate exactly as I needed to do, according to the principle I believe lies behind Bessler's wheel and I was tinkering with the various parts of the mechanisms and suddenly grasped why Bessler had done a certain thing and it was a real eureka moment!

I have had a number of these revelations over a period of time and some have turned into cul-de-sacs but others have proved invaluable. I know that I should not parade my hopes so publicly because if I'm wrong its a long way to fall and even further to climb back up - but (and as I heard it said on TV the other day - its a 'J.Lo but') I am so excited at the prospect of finally getting to the end of this life-long search that I cannot contain my exuberance!

I think that people will be surprised at how simple this machine really is. Even though I'm having problems building it, the basic idea is so simple that, as Karl commented, I cannot understand why it hasn't been discovered before. Bessler gives an amazing assortment of clues which all make sense once you have the whole picture but individually they seem to counter each other.

I still maintain my belief that five mechansisms are required and I'll try and explain why without giving too much away. If you assume that a piece of the mechanism has to fall at some point, then it is logical to think that the maximum benefit from that fall will be obtained from a right angled fall, i.e. 90 degrees. You could increase this up to 180 degrees, but half of that fall would be counter productive because .... think, which might be more effective? To start from twelve o'clock and fall to three, or start at three and fall to six o'clock. Any angle outside those two and you stray into the other angle's area of effectiveness.

So a 90 degree fall would fit with a four mechanism wheel. But a fall takes time to start and accomplish what ever it is designed to accomplish, so part of the fall will be ineffective because it is falling and not landing. If you also throw into the mix the fact that the fall cannot start early nor over-run, you can see that although it is designed to fall 90 degrees, in fact it is only going to be effective for slightly less than a full 90 degrees.

What is the next whole number after four that would fulfill the need to have a continuous input from falling weights? Five.

If that is a confusing explanation, I apologise. I thought I'd have a go at explaining my conviction that Bessler used five mechanisms without giving away the solution. Maybe I have?

JC

Friday, 15 January 2010

Gravitywheels for Reactionless Drives?

I'm probably going to be accused of jumping the gun because no such device currently exists, however I, a least, am confident that a reconstruction of a working Bessler wheel is almost upon us, in which case the following speculation might be of interest.

If I am right in my thinking, I believe that the simple fact that Bessler's wheel, or gravitywheel, is a real device then it should be possible to employ, say, an electric motor which can be used to drive it, taking over the role from gravity. What possible reason might one have for doing such a thing? A gravity wheel depends for its power on the force of gravity and what it does is convert the linear force of gravity into a rotational force. If we then apply power to the same device, forcing it to rotate, we should be able to obtain linear thrust, creating a linear propulsion engine or reactionless drive.

This is a well-known characteristic of many mechanical devices. An electric motor is also an electric generator. In its simplest terms you can turn the coil to produce an electric current or you can apply an electric current and turn the coil. So how could we use this potential inertial thruster?

Such a mechanical arrangement has been sought for years for space ship drives. Currently the options are limited to rocket power, although antimatter drives are being researched because it is reckoned to be the most potent fuel known. While 15 tons of chemical fuel were burnt per second to propel a rocket-powered human mission to the moon, just a few tens of milligrams of antimatter will send a ship to Mars, but imagine how much simpler the research would be, and cheaper, if a technique based on a gravity wheel configuration was available.

There are many other potential uses for such a machine and I'm sure that once a working gravitywheel is verified, the floodgates will open and a torrent of new ideas will come pouring out all based on the simple principle of a gravitywheel.

The employment prospects allied to this invention are probably higher than anything else ever invented.

JC

Friday, 8 January 2010

Back to wheel work imminently.

My flu-like symptoms are fading at last (I don't know if it was flu or just a bad cold, but the effect was the same). The weather here in England has been cold, at or below freezing since before Christmas, and well-below at night and we have had several inches of snow and the wind is blowing straight from the Russian steppes - it's cold bbbrrrrrrrr! Last night's temperature fell to 9 degrees below, here and 28 below in Scotland. More snow forecast for this afternoon.

I have cleared a footpath through the snow to my workshop and have dragged an old garden patio heater into it. Unforunately the gas bottle is empty so I am going to get a replacement one today, if I can drive the car to the store without wrecking it - the icy roads round here are lethal! Once the heater's working I shall be able to get back to work and finish this darned wheel!

LATER - got the gas and the heater works!

JC

Friday, 1 January 2010

Happy New Year - and my new year resolution.

Happy New Year to all.

I predict that this year, 2010, will be the year that Bessler's wheel finally returns to its former glory, to spin continuously, powered by gravity.

I have made my New Year's resolution to finish this last prototype of Bessler's wheel as quickly as my health and the weather, allows. If for some reason it doesn't work, I shall publish details of the principle behind it because I know that this at least is correct and it explains why no-one, apart from Bessler, has succeeded in building a gravity wheel, or gravity converter, call it what you want, in recent history. Failure of my wheel to run will be down to my own lack of skill in building it.

My previous predictions have fallen woefully short and my efforts to complete this task sucessfully must be be taxing most people's faith to the limit, but for the first time in my life, I have found the true reason why everyone has failed to date, and it is this knowledge that drives me on.

It was during the first half of 2009 that the truth dawned on me how we might achieve a gravitywheel but it wasn't until the latter half that I actually worked out the real meaning of Bessler's clues and subsequently the actual principle that would drive the wheel.

In the (hopefully) unlikely event that my prototype fails and my published work is also rubbished, I am sure that much progress will have been made leading to a greater understanding of the way the wheel worked. If this leads to someone else succeeding, good luck to them. This task is worth more than a single person's dream.

I added that last paragraph to cover all eventualities but in fact I don't anticipate complete failure as described, but if it happens it happens and I shall admit my fault with as much grace as I can (probably grudgingly) muster!

JC

A Perpetual Motion Machine Must Consume Energy.

When ever I read an opinion on perpetual motion machines there is always included a basic assumption which is stated in an off-the-cuff man...