In my last post I tried to make the point that without a small additional force we cannot make the wheel turn a full circle, and since no other force has been found that accomplishes this simple fact, I maintain my belief that there was only gravity required to drive the wheel. To my mind, believing that there is this other mysterious force available is far less believeable than that two bites at gravity were taken by each mechanism. I respect other people's opinions but I can't help feeling that there are going to be some people with egg on their faces when the solution is found.
I have just read an excellent explanation as to why these other forces such as centrifugal and the other ones associated with a spinning wheel cannot ever be sufficient to supply that extra force. See the Besslerwheel forum response to my post entitled, "A theory about why the number five is so prominent in Johann Bessler's works." by nicbordeaux. The link is at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93780&highlight=#93780
Thanks to technoguy for reminding me about next year's 300th anniversary of Bessler's first exhibition of his gravitywheel at Gera. I hadn't forgotten but these things have a habit of creeping up on you and all of a sudden it's here and nothing has been done in preparation. Somehow we must find a way to celebrate it, ideally with a working version of Bessler's wheel. While I am optimistic that this will be achieved by then, I have to be realistic and admit that after 300 years of failures, the odds are against us succeeding, so we might just miss that date!
Nevertheless, I'm confident that someone will succeed in the next couple of years and I intend to do something to draw people's attention to this significant date - why? Because if a working wheel has not been made by then I think we shall need more publicity to attract new minds to the problem. Maybe none of us 'oldies' familar with the story will succeed and it will take someone with a completely fresh outlook to finally win the prize. How can we grab some headlines? I don't know and I'm not really into making a public spectacle of myself,at least not deliberately - however....
From 27 July to 12 August 2012 the London Olympics will be taking place and the eyes of the world will turned this way, and maybe with all the journalists and other media present and probably looking for stories to send home, before the Olympics start, perhaps I can grab some media attention? I don't have any ideas yet but I'm working on it.
JC
Keep heart John,..Just another week or so and it will be done.
ReplyDelete@ JC
ReplyDeleteExtra forces? "Mysterious" forces?
John, YOU are right in that there was ONLY one force at work in Bessler's wheels: GRAVITY! As I've stated before, he figured out a way to keep the descending side of his one directional wheels a little heavier than their ascending sides by continuously maintaining the eccentricity of the CoM of their weights from a wheel's axle. This automatically caused a net torque on the wheels that would drive them and anything attached to them. (And, as I have repeatedly stated, the energy for all of this came from the energy / mass of a wheel's weights. It did not come from the Earth's gravity field or any other outside environmental source.)
However, the more I think about your shifter / shifted weight "pair" approach, the more pessimistic I find myself becoming about it. Many have tried similar approaches and gotten nowhere with them.
Why not follow what BESSLER suggests WILL actually work? That is, use something similar to the Leupold wheel, reduce the number of levers in it to 8, and then figure out a way for the weights to shift THEMSELVES. Resolve yourself to NEVER ever increase the number of weights beyond 8 no matter what (BTW, such a wheel might work with as few as six levers, but I think less than this, such as the five you are convinced Bessler used, will not work). Adding weights to get that "extra" shifting force will only, as Bessler wrote, result in a wheel that "would run faster if it was empty!"
I would also recommend that you stop thinking in terms of the simplistic interaction of ONLY two weights at a time causing all of the displacement of a wheel's CoM. This business of "pairs" can, IMO, only lead one down a dead end street and waste much valuable research time. The "Connectedness Principle" implies that the rapid rising of a weight as it approached a wheel's zenith involved more than a simple interaction with only one other weight. No, to cause a single weight approaching the zenith to rise "in a flash" means it MUST tap the released energy of SEVERAL other falling weights at the same time.
I hope that I do not sound too dogmatic with all of my recommendations above. They are offered with the best of intentions and after a lifetime filled only with failed attempts at achieving PM which I do not wish to see anybody else experience.
As far as the approaching 3rd centennial of Bessler's unveiling of his Gera wheel is concerned, I find myself beginning to dread it somewhat.
If nothing is accomplished by then, I fear that we shall see a dramatic dropoff of interest in Bessler and his inventions and a resurgence of "other" designs which will just be more fruitless repetitions of past failed designs that present day "inventors" are not even aware of! That would really be tragic considering that Bessler is the ONLY one that has ever actually achieved what they are all chasing after.
I don't see other forces, mysterious or not, at work here. There's only one available and that's gravity. I do wonder however if we are not making things difficult for ourselves by insisting that the wheel (and everything in it) must rotate. Maybe what the witnesses saw was only an outer casing rotating, but the inner mechanism(s) never completed a single revolution, and were just driving the outer casing. But that's my subjective opinion - I have no proof, just a hunch.
ReplyDeleteI read on one of your websites about MT 55 (the pentagram in the gear) and your conviction regarding the number 5 (and 55). I, too, think that MT 55 is a important drawing. In fact what it shows is a mechanism (ratcheted pendulums) that would be eminently suited to drive a outer casing (in order to rotate that) while the inner MT 55 mechanism(s), in whole or in part are responsible for driving it, whilst remaining stationary themselves.
Why don't we follow a two-pronged approach here, to speed things up and multiply changes of success? Why not have two teams: one team builds promising concepts or ideas, the other team uses advanced simulation systems to try out all possible configurations and permutations of concepts and ideas. That way much faster progress can be made in my opinion.
We need to share, concentrate and improve our efforts. The reason for painfully slow (non)progress so far has been the secrecy and very limited collaboration.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"changes" should be "chances", obviously. Sorry.
ReplyDelete...grave mistakes has been done, well deserved. Have a happy week!
ReplyDeleteIn the "spirit" of Halloween, I'll take egg on my face! Good luck to non-skeptics, you need it!
ReplyDeleteYes, Happy Hoooowolleen everyone! (That's supposed to be the howl of a werewolf! LOL!)
ReplyDeleteAs I was shoveling out pounds and pounds of candy to the yearly invading horde of juvenile trick or treaters this evening, I had a strange thought.
Is it my imagination or does the date October 31st occur REPEADEDLY in the Bessler chronology? I'm fairly certain that Bessler did not celebrate Halloween (he may, however, have celebrated the Christianized version, "All Souls Day", on November 2nd) but maybe this date had special astrological or numerological significance for him. One of my beliefs is that Bessler specifically chose certain days to reveal his wheels on. That is, these days of the year were not accidental.
Let's see. October 31 = 10 + 31.
10 + 31 = 41
41 = 4 + 1 = 5 !!!
GOOD HEAVENS, there's that damn number again!
Looks like it's time for me to lay down in a darkened room until this acute case of "five-itis" passes!
This has nothing to do with Bessler (I think) but if you're interested in playing with numbers in this way (41: 4 + 1 = 5), this is called theosophical reduction, where the magic number is 9. That is, adding 9 to any list of digits does not alter the outcome at all e.g. 419: 4+1+9=14, which again leads to 1+4=5. Now all you code-breakers have something else to contend with -LOL.
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, what at first appears as a quaint and useless mathematical curio, it is widely used by banks and the banking system to encode information. This is in bank account numbers. All bank account numbers from any one bank will reduce to the same two digits. All bank accounts from a different bank will reduce to a different two digit number. Thus given just a bank account number, banks can easily derive which bank the account is with.
Happy Halloween everybody!
ReplyDelete