Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Bessler's Gravitywheel, the Bessler-Collins Project, an Italian Documentary and the five mechanisms discovery.

Now that I've got the alternative theories about Bessler's wheel out of the way, we can return to my own theory that it was driven solely by gravity and that this does not violate any laws of physics. I know that not all of my readers agree totally with me but I'm certain that I will prove to be correct.

I'm writing a lengthy document, called the 'Bessler-Collins Project' which sets out my case and I will publish it when I'm happy with it. It incorporates all the clues, both graphic and textual, as well as the work I've done so far. I'm doing this just in case I drop off my perch prematurely!

I'm pleased to say that the Italian documentary is still on, and I'm just waiting on a date to travel to Rome.

I am back in the workshop and in the process of building the mechanism again and still making further discoveries in Bessler's papers - I've found further verification that he used five mechanisms and I know in this instance it does not refer to codes.

This implies that there is a sound reason for needing five mechanisms and I think I know why. Many people have suggested that one mechanisms would suffice to prove the wheel and I agree that it should certainly be able to initiate some rotation, but in my opinion it will be shown that it can only rotate the wheel so far and regardless of being in balance elsewhere it will not rotate further. I know why - or at least I think I do, but I prefer to keep quiet about that for now.

JC

64 comments:

  1. Good luck with your, hopefully, soon upcoming trip to Rome, John. If they are willing to front the money to pay for your trip and hotel room, then that is a sign that they are serious about this documentary. Would also have been nice if they could take you to the various towns in Germany so that the viewer could see where some of the high points of the Bessler story took place, for example the windmill and the building he used to live in. I'd also like to see interviews done with those living in the areas that are both for and against Bessler and his inventions. It would really spice things up if they can show some speculated animations of how the wheels worked or actual prototypes being built now to help inspire the mobilists out there who will see the finished documentary..

    You, like most others, are obviously searching for an OB PM gravity wheel design to solve the Bessler mystery. The problem, I think, with your approach is that you are depending upon separate independent "perpetual motion structures" to rotate the wheel so many degrees each before handing the job of maintaining the imbalance over to the next mechanism in the series.

    However, from studying the clues, I am convinced that the process of maintaining the imbalance is far more complicated than that. If the Connectedness Principle is what I suppose it to be, then the imbalance is only maintained by the COMBINED action of several separate "coordinated" mechanisms working together at any moment so as to provide the wheel with a constant torque. Your approach using discrete structures would only seem to be able to provide short intervals of imbalance and torque between which the wheel would have to coast to the next pulse. I don't think this type of design would allow a wheel to slowly, but steadily, raise a load weight using a block and tackle as suggested in one of the witness letters.

    Just my opinion which, of course, could be wrong considering I've never actually managed to solve the problem myself. Hopefully, you'll have much better luck than me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi technoguy, although the mechanisms are described as discrete, I agree that movement of the mechanism must be coordinated. I imagine two or more mechanisms should be 'active', so that as one finishes, one is still in action and another one is beginning, so that you have an odd number of mechanisms. Three would be insufficient if the rotation produced by each mechanism was less than say, 60 degrees. You need the overlap of two mechanisms active at any one time.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's great news, John. I hope it will push through. Like Techno observed, they should, of course, at the very least shoulder all costs for you. I'm curious about your new research and mechanism musings. Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ JC

    Hmmm...if Bessler's wheels did only contain five "discrete" mechanisms, then I'm imagining that, when producing maximum torque, they would have to be arranged with on.e of their "points" at the 6 o'clock position and the other four placed at around 8:30, 10:30, 1:30: and 3;30. Then, to continously maintain imbalance, the 1;30, 3:30, and 6:00 mechanisms would have their CoM's shifted toward the rim while the 8:30, and 10:30 mechanisms have their CoM's shifted nearer to the axle.

    As it passed the 6:00 position, a mechanism would then automatically begin shifting its CoM toward the axle and, as one passed the 12:00 position, it would begin shifting its CoM back toward the rim.

    If that was all there was to it, then it would certainly work. However, the problem with those damn two weight shifter / shifted mass mechanisms is that when one analyzes the motion of their individual CoMs, one finds that, during a shift on a wheel's descending isde, the CoMs actually just undergo a vertical drop rather than moving out toward the rim. Then, on the wheel's ascending side, rather than shifting toward the axle, they just rise vertically. The analyses I've done of similar mechanisms in the past (none of which, however, used five discrete mechanisms) showed that, during rotation, the total amount of CoM drop distance on the descending side always equaled the total amount of CoM rise distance on the ascending side! Thus, ALL of the energy / mass outputted by the dropping of the CoMs of the descending side weights had to be used by the ascending side weights' CoMs for their rises. There was never any net energy left over to accelerate the wheel or perform useful outside work.

    However, I've never tried this with five mechanisms (or any odd number of mechs for that matter), so, maybe, that would make some sort of important difference?

    If you publish a clear image of what you are working on, then maybe I can have a simulation done of it to see what is or is not happening with it during rotation and report back here on the results. Simulations certainly aren't perfect, but sometimes they can help one find subtle problems with a design that, if corrected, might make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the offer, technoguy, but for now I'd prefer to continue on my own. Although I'm happy to share news of any pieces of code I find, such as the five mechanisms, and what I think they mean, I don't want to reveal what I'm actually working on yet.

    The truth is I have no faith in simulations - for me, you can't beat building models. I've learned so much through building and discovered things I didn't know.

    But thanks anyway.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've been reading the final pages of apologetica and the little gap in "Were I to reveal my art, the -- -- might enslave you." Rather troubled me. I sought to fill in the gaps, so to speak, and being rather fond of crosswords (though rather poor at them), I came across the word "devil". The letters seemed to fit the underlines and the middle space would have held a "V". This being the Roman numeral for five, it looked an fitting Bessler clue. However, I went back to the original German text, and found that there they use only single dashes rather than double. OK, so some license in the translation is possible but then I decided to look at a few other passages. It occurred to me that the word "Devil" is probably different in German to English, so I invoked the internet tool "ImTranslator", and found that devil in German is "Teufel".
    I noticed that on page 353 (JC's Apologetica) there was a direct mention of "Devil", so I again checked the original German which this time put the word as "teuflisch". Running this through various translation engines returned that their translation was "Devilish" or "diabolical". Intrigued, I translate the whole passage:
    "Denn das ist nicht die Weiszheit, die von Oben herab kommt, sondern irdisch, menschlich und teuflisch" which translated to:

    "Because this is not the awareness Weisz, of the The top comes down, but is earthly, sensual and devilish." Compared to JCs:

    "For that is not wisdom that cometh from above, but it cometh of the earth, of mankind, and of the Devil."

    OK, we can't expect a mechanical translator to get everthing right all of the time because a word for word translation can lose syntax as well as grammar from one language to another. However, apart from the interpretation given, there's another word "Weiszheit", that the translator took to be a name and treated it accordingly (Monsieur Blanc becomes Mr. White). I was curious of what who or what "Weiszheit" was. No online dictionary appeared to know of this word (even German ones), so I'm still in the dark as to its actual meaning. Maybe it's an old word, no longer used, and now superseded by something newer.
    I wonder if there are other such curiosities or peculiarities in the translation.
    Can you help JC?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it's the word that translates as wisdom.
    John, congratulations on the documentary. Do you have a contract, or is that next?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Doug,

    The German for wisdom seems to be "verstand"

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're playing with fire when you start trying to translate 18th century German - trust me!

    For the record, wisdom = Weisheit. But curiously, "Weisthum" which is related to "wisdom", refers to "judicial sentence serving as a precedent", or a collection of dictums. There are a number of variations for the word which have slightly different meanings in context.

    As for your comments on the word 'Devil', Great Bear' which appears as blanks - the German is Teufel' and as I have said before, 'u' and 'v' are interchangeable and therefore 'Teufel' can also be spelled 'Tevfel' hence the Roman number 'V', and of course the two letter 'e's which also stand, in Bessler's mind, for the number 5.

    I don't really want to go over all of this again as I did it in 1997 and every year since then! I thought I'd explained it all quite clearly on my web sites and in my books.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  10. PS "verstand" means "mind, reason, thought etc."

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm sorry if all this has been explained previously. This was just one curiosity I stumbled upon.

    My apologies if this next one has also been dealt with, but in case it hasn’t:

    Apologetica P286: "it is my desire to patent my wonderful invention for public use."

    Apologetica was written around 1717, however, "The first unified Patentgesetz (German Patent Act) was adopted on 25 May 1877, which mandated the establishment of an authority tasked with reviewing and awarding patents". i.e. It doesn't sound as if there was a patent system in Germany at the time, so why does Bessler refer to getting a patent?

    Did he perhaps lodge or intend to lodge patents with already established patent offices in other countries? For instance in the UK, "The Designs Registry was set up in 1839 to protect industrial designs and its responsibilities transferred to The Patent Office in 1875"

    Might one of his patents be lurking somewhere undiscovered?.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry, I missed out the reference:
    The origins of patents for invention are obscure and no one country can claim to have been the first in the field with a patent system. However, Britain does have the longest continuous patent tradition in the world. Its origins came from the 15th century, when the Crown started making specific grants of privilege to manufacturers and traders.
    Open letters marked with the King's Great Seal called Letters Patent, signified such grants. Henry VI granted the earliest known English patent for invention to Flemish-born John of Utynam in 1449. The patent gave John a 20-year monopoly for a method of making stained glass, required for the windows of Eton College that had not been previously known in England.
    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-history.htm

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ JC

    No problem. If and when you are ready and if I am still active on this blog, I will try to render what assistance I can.

    Like most here, I too am still exploring various possible solutions to the Bessler mystery and do not want to reveal too much at this point. I guess we are all somewhat like human equivalents of squirrels who have found what we think is a tasty nut and run up our own trees to realously savor and quard it. We all think only our little nut is the tasty one and everyone else has a rotten one or a pebble that has been mistaken for a nut. Time, of course, will tell which of us, if any(!), has the edible nut.

    I've known inventors that spent months working on a design and got it up to the point of making a simple final test to see if it worked. At that point they would immediately stop work and just try to extend as long as possible the high they got from the anticipation of achieving success before going ahead and making the final test to see if the design actually worked. In this way they prolonged their pretest euphoria and avoided that painful day of judgement for their design which they knew all along would most likely be yet another failure to add to their long list of such failures.

    Yes, the search for PM is truly a bizarre one and requires one have incredible patience and an unbelievably high treshhold for frustration. These are some of the many reasons that I admire Bessler. He must have been made of some really tough stuff!


    @ Great Bear

    Other translations for "weiszheit" could be "insight" and "wise saying".

    As far as patents are concerned, Bessler probably wanted the equivalent of Letters Patent from as many of his local monarchs as possible, at least initially. However, as time went on and he realized the difficulty of this, I think he just wanted to sell the invention outright and leave that headache to the new owner(s). There is much positive to be said about this approach, but it obviously was the more difficult path to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Great Bear: Old German is in many ways very similar to the old and modern Dutch language. "Weiszheit" is equal to the modern word "wijsheid" in Dutch, which generally refers to wisdom, insight, and experience.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Great bear, if bessler had filed for a patent, John would know better than anyone. I don' think he did; he probably was too paranoid to trust the system, or his "invention" couldn't clear the hurdle for a patent. If he had to disclose "the secret" in order to obtain a patent, that suggests he could have been covering up a fraud if he didn't follow through on his statement that he desired to patent it. He probably knew all of this about the patent process anyway, and knew the inevitable outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There was no patent system in Germany until 1877.

    Britain is noted for the establishment of a patent system which has been in continuous operation for a longer period than any other in the world.

    In 1623 the Statute of Monopolies allowed patent rights of fourteen years for "the sole making or working of any manner of new manufacture within this realm to the first and true inventor".

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi John,..While I said that one mechanism was all you need for the wheel to turn,even slowly,I still agree that five or more mechanisms are needed for the wheel to turn more smoothly and strongly.
    I do think we need to define mechanisms.
    Do you mean there are five duplicate meachanisms?,..which conflicts with Bessler's eight weights,or are there five participant parts for each weight?.
    It is possible it could be the latter.
    My problem is this,..If you are applying mechansims solely to cater for the dead spots,then logically you are not going to have enough energy over to do any useful work!?.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, five duplicate mechanisms, Trevor. I've never taken the eight weight report too seriously.

    For a start I'm working on a one-way wheel and that report referred to a two-way wheel. Plus, as I've said before we don't know if he deadened the sound of one or or weights - and von Erlach only said 'about eight weights'.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ JC

    I thought it was considered more or less "certain" that the two way wheels actually contained TWO one way wheels in opposition to each other such that, during rotation, the wheel forced to undergo retograde rotation would have its weighted levers locked up against their rim stops so as to position the CoM of that wheel's weights at the center of the axle. If so, then, after startup, whether one is discussing either a one or bi-directional wheel, he is ALWAYS actually only discussing the actions of a ONE way wheel.

    I also think that you have overly focused on the use of the word "about" in describing the number of weights heard hitting their rim stops on a wheel's descending side during each rotation and allowed this to become a major justification for your belief that Bessler's wheels only contained five discrete mechanisms which drove them.

    Measuring the precise number of impacts taking place on the descending side of the Weissenstein wheel would, one might think, appear to be the easiest measurement possible to make on the wheel and, therefore, the most reliable. All that need be done was to tack a handkerchief to the rim of the wheel so that someone standing near it could begin counting the impact sounds as the handkerchief passed, say, the 3 o'clock position and then stop counting them as the handerchief passed that point again.

    However, there is a way that significant error could creep into this "simple" method. Such error would occur if the impacts took place just as the handerchief reached the 3 o'clock position. In this case one might occasionally undercount the impact sounds and get only 7 impacts or overcount them and get 9 sounds per wheel rotation. The average of a large number of trials though would always be 8 impacts per wheel rotation and anyone writing about this would certainly be justified in using the word "about" in describing that 8 impacts were measured even though that number was, indeed, an exact one.

    In fact, the use of the word "about" further strengthens my own belief that the descending side impacts were occuring at or very near a wheel's 3 o'clock position and that there were 8 impacts per wheel rotation caused by 8 discrete "perpetual motion structures" within each one way wheel's drum.

    A 3 o'clock location for these descending side impacts also fits in nicely with Bessler's mentioning that the weights applied their force at right angles to the axle because this location does place a weighted lever HORIZONALLY at right angles to the axle where the torque it supplies the wheel is maximized.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You make a reasonable argument technoguy, but I have recently found additional evidence that there were five mechanisms required (or shall we say recommended). This evidence does not suggest that is is to be used as a code but is simply a factula representation of five mechanisms.

    Your suggestion that "the wheel forced to undergo retograde rotation would have its weighted levers locked up against their rim stops so as to position the CoM of that wheel's weights at the center of the axle" is not necessarily true. I see no reason why the weighted levers should not continue to moved in the wrong direction and yet not cancel out the advantage gained by those assisting rotation. This would account for the extra bangs heard by von Erlach.

    Beside how would the levers have been locked against their rim stops? Witnesses did not report any adjustments made prior to changing the direction.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  21. Justsomeone said:

    J C you are mountains away from convincing me that Bessler used 5 mechanisms! Will the new evidence you found change my mind?

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ JC

    Well, I guess we are just going to have to be patient and wait to see this additional evidence you've found to support your claim of wheel "pentagramicity" (I just made that word up!). before we can fairly access it I think, however, you will find that the possibility of a wheel containing only five "perpetual motion structures" is a VERY hard concept to sell unless the evidence is of a dramatic and overwhelming nature.

    As far as locking up the weighted levers of a wheel undergoing retrograde rotation is concerned, that is a fairly easy thing to accomplish (although poor Bessler complained that adding this feature gave him headaches!).

    Unfortunately, since I am working on this very problem at the moment, I am not at liberty to discuss it in detail. However, suffice it to say that the process involves using small gravity activated latches that are automatically deployed for whichever "sub wheel" inside a bi-directional wheel's drum is forced to undergo retrograde rotation as a result of the direction that a person has selected to start the bi-directional wheel's drum turning in. These latches only affect the particular sub wheel undergoing retrograde motion and completely lock all eight of its lever weights against their rim stops after a single drum rotation has taken place. Should that sub wheel later be turned in its "proper" direction, then its latches are automatically disengaged after a single rotation has taken place.

    Most ikely, those "extra" sounds von Erlach heard were due to the motions of these latching mechanisms. There would have been 16 of them in a bi-directional wheel's drum and, I imagine, they could put out quite a clatter when the drum was turning at its maximum terminal rotation rate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The concept that is difficult to sell isn't 5 or 8 or 100 mechanisms. It's a gravity driven machine that you have to sell. Science operates on the null hypothesis.

    The number of mechanisms could have been two, and the weights could have impacted more than once. The point is, no one knows nothing about the inside. If you approach the problem from a neutral position, it makes just as much sense that the weights had nothing to do with the wheel's motion. If you agree gravity does no work, has no ability, then what good would it do to have weights shifting around, disrupting the smooth flywheel-like inertial energy provided by the sheer weight of the wheel?

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Doug

    I've dealt with this issue before. An overbalanced PM gravity wheel works because the eccentricity of the CoM of its weights forces them to lose more energy / mass on the wheel's descending side than they regain on its ascending side. The wheel does not actually violate any of the known laws of physics.. It just bends them as much as possible without breaking them!

    The mystery for me is not the reality off this process, but, rather, how it is achieved; that is, how is the CoM of the wheel's weights maintained on the wheel's descending side during rotation?

    We have Bessler's word that he used a modification of the simple overbalanced wheel as depicted in MT 9 and that if one takes PARTS of the other wheels depicted in MT and puts them together with a "discerning eye" he will be able to BEGIN to look for a working perpetual motion wheel from them.

    In looking through MT's first forty drawings what do we see? Weighted levers, interconnecting ropes, springs, stops, etc. How nice it would be if we could just feed all of those "parts" into some super computer somewhere and then ask it to try every mechanically possble combination in order to find that ONE design that keeps the CoM of the weights on the wheel's descending side while also having its descending side weights lose a bit more energy / mass than they regain on the wheel's ascending side!

    That day may come. But, if it doesn't, then we have much work to do if we do not want to have to admit defeat! It is truly awe inspiring to realize that Bessler, through a combination of incredible stubborness and effort, was actually able to do what that hypothetical super computer above did. True, the computer might be able to do it in less than a minute and it took Bessler a decade. But, he DID do it and in an age where the most advanced "computer" was still the human brain.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If you look at your theory of "descending side weights lose a bit more energy / mass than they regain on the wheel's ascending side", what happens?
    The only way they can lose energy is by slowing down. If they slow down, they also lose the associated mass and inertia. If you expect the wheel to give back that inertia on the other side of the wheel, the ascending weights have to speed up.
    But in reality, and in your theory, the ascending weights have to slow down relative to the descending weights because they are tracking a shorter distance (closer to the axis) than the descending weights in the circle. Either way you look at it, it balances,either in words or in a build, as has always been observed.
    It doesn't matter how anyone's theory, or build, tries to explain bessler's secret, they all have to fail because of the behavior of mass, and the associated forces, that have never been observed to behave any other way (in spite of quantum and relativity observations which don't apply).
    I don't think anyone is admitting defeat by realizing this. I would say they are coming to an understanding, not because of what someone taught them is a law of nature or because an authority figure says so, but because they finally understand why things are the way they are, and we can't change them.
    We can only work with what we observe; observations of bessler's wheel appeared to bend the laws: gravity does work, perpetual motion is possible, over-unity achieved in a machine. But if they really did all those things, science and mechanics can't explain how, and words and uncountable builds have never explained it either. So it falls outside the realm of science and then there is no hope of replicating it. Or it doesn't, and his wheels didn't bend any laws, and he was a gifted and tortured illusionist. I can accept either one of those without admitting defeat.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Doug ,..What you say does not add up.When a paricle slows down,its energy is transferred but the mass and enertia of that particle remains constant.
    Energy is the only thing that is invested or divested.
    Please explain what you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You'll have to ask techno, it's his theory. The way we understand mass and energy, is that if energy leaves a system, the relative amount of mass, which is the same thing, also leaves, and both are absorbed by the system's environment.
    In this case - {unbalanced forces in a wheel} - it doesn't have anything to do with an explanation for it or against it, even though techno, and his fraction of a picogram theory, would like to think so.
    I was just trying to show how his explanation of bessler's wheel (about the different speeds on each side of the wheel), is flawed like the others. Does that make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Actually technoguy is basically correct if you give any credance to Einstein's theory.He states that as a particle of mass approaches the speed of light it increases in mass,but this has nothing to do with height as the potential energy gained from height far outstrips any picogram variation.
    This brings me to another theory I feel really is in question,..Do you remember the experiment they performed using two rockets equiped with atomic clocks,one travelling with the earth's rotation and the other travelling against.They found that the error in the time differance between the two proves Einstein's theory which states that velocity causes time to be slowed.
    Well,I feel that this experiment is flawed and the reason is this.
    The atomic clock that went the fastest with the earth's rotation only slowed up because the molecular frequency that governed the clock actually slowed up becuase of the increase in the paricle mass due to velocity.
    Time really does not exist,there is only velocity,and time,which is the invention of man as a means to measure velocity.It only exists in the mind as a ruler or measuring standard,so how can it change.
    What do you say?..all opinions to this debate are welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The experiment I read about involves one clock on earth and one on a rocket, so the rocket clock was traveling much faster relative to the earth clock, and the results were consistent with what would be predicted by relativity. I'm certain that all of the factors that could influence the results were included in the calculations, including the factor you mentioned.
    As I understand it, time exists because of the universe moving from a state of low entropy to higher entropy. The funny thing is, if the universe worked in reverse, it would still have an arrow of time pointing in the other direction.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doug wrote:

    "If you look at your theory of "descending side weights lose a bit more energy / mass than they regain on the wheel's ascending side", what happens?

    The only way they can lose energy is by slowing down. If they slow down, they also lose the associated mass and inertia. If you expect the wheel to give back that inertia on the other side of the wheel, the ascending weights have to speed up"

    Actually, the descending side weights lose energy / mass because they are FALLING in a gravity field. The rate at which this happens will depend on the speed of rotation of the wheel. The ascending side weights gain energy / mass because they are RISING in a gravity field. The rate at which this happens will also depend upon the speed of rotation of the wheel. As the descending side weights lose energy / mass, it is transfered to all of the rotating structures of the wheel. As the ascending side weights regain energy / mass, it must come from all of the rotating structures of the wheel. In essence, the frame of the wheel's drum acts like a conduit for the transfer of energy / mass between the wheel's descending and ascending side weights.

    The point I've tried to make is that it is the DIFFERENCE that is created in these two rates by the stable eccentricity of the CoM of an overbalanced PM gravity wheel's weights which allows the wheel to continuously output a small net amount of energy / mass that can then be used to accelerate all of the structures of the wheel or even perform outside work.

    I'm familiar with that experiment where an atomic clock was placed aboard a jet plane and flown at high speed after it had been synchronized with an identical clock on the ground. After the jet landed and the two clocks' times were compared, it was found that the clock on the plane had lost so many microseconds compared to the one on the ground. This interesting experiment indicates the validity of one of the consequences of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: the time for processes tends to slow down or "dilate" as the moving system containing them begins to approach the velocity of light.

    Obviously, BOTH the ground clock and jet clock are in motion and experiencing time dilation, but the greater speed of the jet's clock relative to the ground clock means that the jet's time dilation was greater.

    Want to slow your rate of aging at least in a relavistic way? No problem. One need only travel through space at close to the speed of light and when he lands back on Earth everyone else here will be much older than he.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Techno, weights don't lose energy when they are falling. Their energy is transformed from potential energy to kinetic energy. And when they are rising their energy goes from kinetic back to potential energy. That's one of the other reasons your explanation is flawed. If the weights don't lose energy, then they don't lose a fraction of a picogram of mass, etc., and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ Doug

    It's not "my" theory, but rather Einstein's. However, thanks for attributing it to me! LOL!

    Yes, the descending side weights in a Bessler type overbalanced PM gravity wheel would lose "gravitational potential energy" AND gain kinetic energy IF there were no weights on the wheel's ascending side to oppose their increase in kinetic energy. But, the ascending side of the drum has weights attached to it which prevent the descending side weights from accelerating or gaining kinetic energy. The ascending side weights are also (in a wheel turning at a constant rotation rate) prevented from accelerating and gaining kinetic energy as they rise and gain just gravitational potential energy.

    All that happens, due to the presence of the wheel's drum to which they are all attached. is that the loss of the gravitational potential energy of the descending side weights is just transformed into a gain of gravitational potential energy by the ascending side weights.

    Well, gravitational potential energy is still energy and wherever one has energy, he also has mass. Thus, as the wheel's descending side weights LOSE potential energy AND mass, the wheel's ascending side weights must GAIN both gravitational potential energy AND mass.

    "My" theory stubbornly remains valid!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, you've almost got it.

    The next thing is, the weights on the descending side convert exactly the same amount of energy, within their own mass, from potential to kinetic as the ascending weights convert from kinetic to potential. ("Lose" and "gain" are misleading, convert is more accurate). This means no energy gain in the system from gravity.
    Why can't we leverage the weights to overbalance the wheel, ride against the rim on one side and closer to the axle on the other, and provide torque at the axle? Because it takes force to do that, to get the weights to do your bidding, and when anything within a system is forced from one position to another, there is always an opposing force within, at the opposite side of the system, that results in no gain in torque at the axle. We can't leverage more torque into the system. I know everybody already knows all this basic physics, but even guys who know these things still think there is a way around them because of bessler's legend. If it appeared he was successful then it must be. The thing is, he only gave the appearance of success with gravity and leverage and cloaked it in mystery. The solution isn't where you think it is.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ Doug

    I would agree with you if it was the case that the weights in Bessler's wheels followed the same path length on both sides of his wheels. But, he tells us that the ascending side weights first "gravitate to the center" or axle and then " climb back again" presumerably toward the rim. This implies that descending side weights MUST have followed a slightly shorter route than descending side weights did when a wheel was in rotation.

    It is this difference in path length that leads to a diiference in the magnitudes (but not directions, of course) of the average vertical velocities of the ascending and descending side weights with the ascending side weights rising, on average, a little slower than the descending side weights fell if a wheel was to always have four weights on each of its sides. This means that the ascending side weights would regain gravitational potential energy and mass at a rate that was a bit less than the descending side weights lost them when a wheel was in rotation. It is the instantaneous difference between the magnitudes of these average vertical velocities at any moment that determines how much energy / mass the wheel could output to accelerate all of its structures and to perform outside work.

    You again seem to be suggesting that Bessler's wheels were hoaxes, yet you do not provide any plausible hypothesis for how he carried out such hoaxes. I at least have what I consider to be a plausible hypothesis that supports both the validity of his wheels and his honestly in describing their action although, unfortunately, he never revealed the details of how they worked sufficiently enough to allow their duplication by others.

    Some skeptics like to just sit back with the "lack of evidence is evidence of lack" approach to Bessler's wheels and say that because we can not currently replicate or even explain all of their operational details, therefore they had to be hoaxes. Other skeptics use the "since it can not be, therefore it is not" approach and assume that his wheels, if they were genuine, would have to be violating the First Law of Thermodynamics and, therefore, that guarantess they were hoaxes..

    I choose to follow a far less extreme approach to Bessler's wheels. I start by saying that I will accept that they were genuine and that Bessler was an honest claimant to having constructed a working overbalanced PM gravity wheel. This is the "innocent until proven guilty" approach and I will maintain it until I actually see some solid evidence that he was a hoaxer and a liar. Next, I will consider that what he achieved can be done without violating any of our currently accepted laws of physics.

    With this appoach to guide me, all that remains to be done is to determine what was the mechanism that he found that allowed his wheels to do what no other inventor's wheel had done before or since Bessler. I have faith that a solution is possible even though I may not be the one to find it. I do not pursue the solution because I believe it will revolutionize our world or make me personally rich. I simply want to know how he did it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. There could have been a different illusion for each wheel, it depends on the circumstances of the demonstrations. The demonstrations were all indoors with Bessler present. The first wheel could have been clockwork. When a weight was lifted, the energy to lift it could have been returned to the wheel when it was lowered. The fact that he said clockwork wasn't employed is as misleading as saying 'springs were employed, but not as you think'.
    The maid, and the others, could have been involved in any one of the wheels or more than one. The wheels weren't all given the same inspection as the last one.
    The last one was thoroughly inspected, but Karl could have been an additional confederate. Castles were known to have secret rooms, passageways, trapdoors. He saw the interior, but was so unimpressed that he didn't sink any more money into it than he already had. That couldn't have been good news to any potential investor. It implied that either the wheel wasn't worth much (and really, it wasn't compared to steam power, if it used a renewable source of energy), or it was a fraud that he had to then help cover.

    Your plausible hypothesis of the differing velocities of the weights because they have different paths on each side of the wheel is just another way of saying "overbalancing", which can't be done because of opposing forces. No gravity driven mechanisms can force the weights into those positions, those paths, those different velocities.
    It would be basically equivalent to putting two equal weights on the ends of a seesaw and watching the seesaw go up and down, over and over, by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Doug

    I like to think a person is innocent until proven guilty and that their claims are true until proven false. The fact remains that Bessler was never proven to be guilty of fraud and his wheels were never proven to be hoaxes. I also do not want to adopt the "It can't be true, therefore it must be false" approach of the skeptics. The history of science is filled with many instances when this approach was shown to lead to false conclusions. (For example, the leading physicist of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin, immediately proclaimed upon hearing the announcement of X radiation and its ability to penetrate and show the interior structures of the human body that this claimed new form of radiation was the greatest scientific hoax he had ever heard of. And, of course, we know how Kelvin's prediciton turned out!)

    Yes, if one tries hard enough he can conjure up several ways of dismissing Bessler's wheels as hoaxes (without a shred of evidence to support any of those ways, of course). IMO, all such scenarios are highly improbable considering the constant power levels and run times Bessler's wheels were capable of demonstrating. I also consider it extremely improbable that Carl would have been party to a hoax. He had one of the most highly regarded reputations in Europe at the time and if a wheel had been sold at the price Bessler demanded and then proven to be a hoax, Carl would have been personally destroyed by his involvement in the affair. It is far easier for me to accept Bessler's wheels were genuine than to even consider Carl would risk his sterling reputation (actually more of a sacred honor) by backing a hoax.

    Bessler offered to run his wheels outdoors in order to demonstate that they were not drawing power from their environments. And, there was a case when a wheel was tested by someone without Bessler being present. Remember the incident when 's Gravesande purposely decided to test the Weissenstein wheel without Bessler's prior knowledge? This infuriated Bessler so much that he destroyed the wheel convinced that s' Gravesande was trying to steal the secret of its internal mechanics. Actually, s' Gravesande found nothing suspicious during his testing of the giant wheel.

    I admit that the weighted levers inside of Bessler's wheels had to do some very unusual things during each 45° of drum rotation...so unusual that no one since then has been able to duplicate their motions. But, their unusual motions were permitted through the use of his Connectedness Principle which, unfortunately, we still do not have. I have faith that, when we finally do have the Connectedness Principle, we too will be able to replicate Bessler's wheels with all of their performance capabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Actually , the weak power levels combined with the short run times are more indicative of either hoax or very weak conversion and storage, then release, of renewable energy, possibly combined with the aforementioned clockwork, in different combinations for each version of the wheels.
    It's very likely that karl didn't see what actually made the wheel turn. What he saw could have been what he thought made it turn, making him innocent, but at the same time, duped as well.
    And you have to ask, if everyone was accusing him of fraud, why didn't they call his bluff? If it was genuine, it would have been free energy for pumping water out of mines, etc, instead of the expense of steam. If it was fraud, off with his head, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I wonder how John is progressing with his wheel in the light of his latest discoveries.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm assembling the parts, Trevor, but even with what I know, there is a certain amount of trial and error when it comes to deciding the length of a particular lever and where along its length, another one is joined. Get it wrong and the movement either works at an angle that throws out the range of movement, or the distances are wrong and you don't get enough of a mechanical advantage.

    It's difficult to describe without pictures - and without giving anything away ;-)

    I'm catching a flight to Rome on 6th December and returning on 8th December. I've been sent a list of questions to base the interview on and I've been working on some notes I'll take with me, so I have had to leave the workshop again for the moment.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  40. @ Doug

    Sorry, but I find it VERY difficult to believe that Bessler could have duped Carl. The count was a skilled mathematician, a collector of the then state of the art scientific instruments, and a patron of previous inventors such as Denis Papin who the French even today still consider the original inventor of the steam engine. After paying Bessler a not insignificant amount for the privilege of learning the secret of his wheels, one can be very sure that ALL of Carl's questions would have been answered to his complete satisfaction.

    I am wondering, however, just HOW the secret was revealed to Carl. The merseberg wheel had been destroyed and the Weissenstein wheel not yet constructed. Bessler must have brought Carl the first small table top model he constructed at the House of Richter and let him personally examine and handle it. In such a small model there would not have been room to hide any clockwork mechanism. It would have just been intricately constructed from wood, lead weights, strings, and springs. Carl would have toyed with it and seen how it constantly tried to turn due to its offset CoM. I think only something like this would have compelled Carl to declare that Bessler's invention was "very simple" and that he, Carl, was "suprised that no one else had ever thought of it"!


    @ JC

    That's GREAT news, John. Hopefully you will be able to share with us the list of questions you've come up with for the interviewer to ask you. I hope you will keep in mind the various questions that have come up on this blog when you make up your list because they are probably the same questions that viewers of the future documentary, especially the more technically oriented ones, would like to hear answered.

    Sorry to hear that you are having problems with your latest wheel. Frustrating obstacles and failures are all part of the game of PM pursuit, but I've found that every failure really serves a positive purpose: it immediately stimulates one's mind to come up with yet another "workaround" to try that, hopefully, will lead to success next time. Even if we never find the secret of Bessler's wheels, maybe all of this brain straining we do will help protect us from getting Alzheimer's Disease when we are in our '80's! LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  41. That's exactly what Bessler offerend, Doug. Off with his head if it was even remotely a fraud - even if somebody would pay up this enormous sum and prove it to be a fraud afterward. That is one hell of a claim to make, especially in those days! (although in recent -modern- times, depending on religion, it seems to be accepted again as a best practice, I understand)

    What is also far too easily dismissed, in my opinion, is that the cream of the crop, the finest scientists of the day were apparently also rather easily duped - even when long endurance tests, such as the locked-room multiple-week test were successfully performed.

    Also, if one carefully reads the documented meticulous research done by John, as ewll as other sources and documents, it is in all fairness almost impossible to accept the possibility of a hoax. Just as we are struggling to understand the concepts and possible mechanisms used by Bessler, so are the skeptics grasping at straws to demonstrate the likelihood of a hoax.

    But I think we do have strong and convincing circumstantial evidence for the validity of his claims.

    ReplyDelete
  42. John, that is very good news indeed! Congratulations! Don't indulge too much in those lovely pastas, or you'll find considerable "anomalous gain of mass", lol! At least that works for me every time ;-)

    I would love to hear about your experiences in Rome. When that documentary airs, I'd love to buy a DVD of it, since I won't likely be able to watch it here, in the far East.

    ReplyDelete
  43. technoguy, I didn't write the questions, they have given me a list of topics they wish to cover and I've been writing some notes as reminders.

    Andre, I hope to be given a copy of the documentary myself, and I'll share it if I'm allowed to. Apparently they sell documentaries to 76 countries, dubbed or subtitled as required. So the world will finally get to hear of Bessler - always assuming this project does actually materialise!

    JC

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  44. Absolutely brilliant! Well I am sure with your expert input on the matter this will be a very interesting documentary. Let's hope it indeed materializes. It sure sounds serious, I have a good feeling about it. Good luck and have a pleasant flight next week!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Super news John! It looks like a documentary about Bessler is really happening! Good luck to you.

    And about if Bessler was a fraud.. One thing actually bothers me. I think there were some people referring Bessler as a mad man. This makes me think that he may have thought he really found the secret of PM even if he didn't. And a mad man can do/say anything, you know...

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ JC

    So far, this documentary sounds legitimate. However, I, having had "bad" experiences in the past, would not be breathing easy until AFTER I had finished everything and was deplaning back in my home country. Let's hope that you don't get an email at the last minute saying that there was a funding "problem" and now YOU will have to pay all costs if you want the documentary made!

    Since you are providing the answers to their general questions, you will, in essence, control the content and focus of the documentary. Would really be nice if it could include some tantalizing animations of possible internal wheel mechanisms in it. These will appeal to the inventors out there who will see the finished documentary. Biographies and locations are nice, but I've noticed that thsoe following this topic are literally starved for more information about what may have been going on INSIDE of Bessler's wheels.

    Bessler mad? I don't think I would describe him as mad or insane. I would certainly say he was stubborn, cynical, and justifiably suspicious of those who approached him regarding his marvelous inventions. These are typical characterics that could describe about 90% of the inventors I've known over the years!

    ReplyDelete
  47. The question remains, why didn't someone buy it? Not even Karl, who knew the reason it worked, and the possibilities for it! Bessler couldn't sell it alone or with Karl's help. The answer has to be the buyers weren't convinced it was genuine, for different reasons, and their suspicions were confirmed when he destroyed the final wheel, papers, and drawings after the trial; or, if it was genuine, it wasn't capable of the claims he made of power increase, which would have been a deal breaker as well.
    If you want to look for a genuine solution, that doesn't involve people in other rooms, or re-energizing the wheel,or whatever, it has to be a weak source of renewable external energy. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @ Doug

    I don't think that most potential buyers doubted that Bessler's wheels were genuine because they had Carl's word that they were. Because of his reputation and standing in the European community, that would have settled the matter.

    The problem was the power output of his wheels. I've read various estimates of how much water the Weissenstein wheel's attached Archimedian screw was lifting and it was only about 2 liters per second to a height of maybe 1.5 feet which is what one would expect of a wheel with a constant output of 25 watts.

    Quick calculations would have shown potential buyers that, if they wanted to pump water out of a mine from a depth of, say, several hundreds of feet at a rate of tens of liters per second, then they would need an unreasonably large wheel or assembly of wheels to do so. As far more powerful and compact steam driven pumps were becoming available, it would have been getting progressively more difficult for Bessler to sell mine owners on the idea of using his PM gravity wheels to perform such an often necessary task (especially in coal mines).

    okay already...WHAT is that "weak source of renewable energy" you refer to?

    ReplyDelete
  49. What difference does it make what it might be? You wouldn't consider it anyway. 'It couldn't produce enough energy fast enough, so you'd have to store and release it inside', etc. You and John, et al., won't be swayed from gravity as an energy source.
    You say I and others should consider gravity because the conservative force definition might have a workaround. If you're sure the connectedness principle is that workaround, you should be able to at least point to something, somewhere, anywhere that might have that property, if you can't put it into words or a mechanism. What is in nature that connects things together and allows gravity to perpetually move them?
    At least I'm willing to give bessler the benefit of the doubt in considering how he might have done it within the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Well,..That a turn around Doug! I was just going to ask you,how would you like your egg,..raw or scrambled.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @ Doug

    Now you are saying that Bessler's wheels were just acting as accumulators of that "weak, environmental energy source" that you have declined to specify. This approach was abandoned long ago by most Bessler researchers as a tentative hypothesis.

    I have previously considered such things as a wheel whose weights were shifted by a mainspring driven mechanism that was periodically wound up by changes in external air pressure and temperature. Clocks, such as the "Atmos" can be purchased today which will use changes in air pressure to keep themselves continously running. But, again, as you surmise, I must reject this possibility because Bessler's wheels were capable of constantly outputting tens of watts of power and doing so for periods of time that would have taken such energy accumulating mechanisms weeks to store up inside of a wheel. This approach just does not seem plausible to me.

    Also, we must ask ourselves if, upon seeing something like that, would Carl have described the mechanism as "...so simple...etc."? I don't think so. Besides, Bessler emphatically states that the weights within a wheel were the source of its perpetual motion which was due to the "force" (should be translated as "torque") that they acquired from their "swinging" motions. These weights only swung about because they were attached to the ends of levers whose other ends were connected via pivots to the frame of a wheel's drum. They, however, could not just swing randomly with respect to each other, but, rather, were forced into a "coordinated" motion that was governed by the cords that interconnected them.

    Is there an example of the Connectedness Principle in nature? I doubt it because, if there was, then humans would have been building self-moving wheels using it long before Bessler arrived on the scene.

    Let me give an example which, I believe, demonstrates just how the Connectedness Principle worked.

    ReplyDelete
  52. PART II (A pox on that 4,096 character comment limit!)

    Imagine a wheel with eight pivots even spaced around its periphery. Now imagine eight small weighted levers attached to the pivots that hang vertically downward from each pivot. The CoM of the eight weights will be directly under the wheel's axle (assume lever mass is negligible) and, of course, the wheel will not move because there is no torque being produced by the pendant weights.

    Next, imagine that we figure out a way to counter balance the weighted levers against each other so that they are in a stable equilibrium even though their weights have their CoM displaced onto one side of the wheel's axle.
    In this case the wheel will feel a torque and begin to rotate in an effort to place the CoM of the weights under the axle and reduce their torque to zero.

    But, and this is the beauty of the Connectedness Principle, as soon as the wheel begins to rotate, the interconnecting cords between the weighted levers cause them to automatically and immediately shift about so as to again place their weights' CoM back where it was orignally with repect to the wheel's axle. Everytime the wheel rotates a few degrees, the levers automatically shift themselves so as to compensate for this wheel motion and again reestablish their original equilibrium so that their weights' CoM immediately returns to where it started.

    This process would be instantaneous and provide a continuous torque to accelerate the wheel. The problem is that, as the wheel speeds up, so also does the CF acting on the weights. This then causes the weights to swing out on the wheel's ascending side and thereby delays their levers' shifting motions that return their weights' CoM back to its starting position. The result is that the location of the CoM slowly begins rotating under the axle and the wheel's torque decreases. At some point the torque will reduce to the point where it can just equals the air and bearing drag acting on the wheel and the wheel will thereafter continue turning at a constant rate.

    Is what I am describing above possible? If it is, then Bessler's wheels WERE genuine perpetual motion machines. If it is not, then Bessler was a lying hoaxer. Each of us must make up our mind as to what the reality of the Bessler story was. I have already made up mine and will continue to maintain my belief in the genuine nature of Bessler's wheels until and unless I see something to the contrary that is VERY convincing.

    Sorry, but I don't find unspecified "weak, renewable environmental energy sources" very convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Sorry Doug but your renewable energy sounds like the Leiden Jar idea. I am with "there was a mechanism inside the wheel" side however it looks impossible! On the other hand I agree all you said about the cyclic motion and other stuff about energy and I also think that some clues contradict...But I want to beleive Bessler was not a fraud. There must be a way of making the damn wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  54. See what I mean? You and everyone dismiss it out of hand, not even worthy of discussion. A specific source is irrelevant. Don't forget your favorite example of implausible technology, heavier than air flight.
    I say it isn't possible your way. How many different ways, and from different directions, have all the physics laws, and the world they represent, been analyzed to death to disprove overbalanced energy? Enough ways to convince me. I don't even need them, it's as obvious as night follows day.

    Are you the official spokesman for all Bessler researchers' efforts?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Now now guys,..let us reason together.We cannot categorically say it's possible nor impossible.
    Until it's proven we have to keep an open mind.
    The only thing we object to is that the academics abuse their authority to rule for or against a a concept before it has been proven.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It is my contention (as it is JC's, I believe) that Bessler's wheels NEVER actually violated ANY physical laws. They simply applied them in a very novel manner.

    The method he used, I believe, as I outlined above, is that the weights within a wheel were very carefully counter balanced against each other in such a way that their CoM was offset from the wheel's axle. As the wheel then reponded to the torque this created by undergoing its own rotation, the weights and the levers that held them would automatically and immediately readjust their positions with respect to each other so as to maintain their original equilibrium and keep the CoM of the weights right where it started.

    For example, consider the wheel described above which had eight pendant weights hung from pivots evenly spaced around its periphery. Its weights' CoM is located directly below the axle and thus there is no torque present. However, if we attach a small motor to the wheel and rotate it slowly, then all of the hanging weights will immediately begin rotating around their respective pivots and will complete one revolution for every wheel rotation. However, at all times the CoM of the weights will stay exactly where it started which is right below the axle.

    Is it then such a stretch of the imagination to envision some starting position for a wheel's eight weighted levers that, because of a web of cords carefully interconnecting them, will continously maintain their CoM to one side (the descending side) of the wheel's axle? It does not seem that "impossible" to me although, admittedly, I don't know all of the details of how it was done.

    It is realy somewhat arrogant for anyone such as a scientist, engineer, etc. to just sit back and pontificatingly quote a few well established laws of physics and then with his next breath use them to quickly deny any and all applications of those laws that which might have allowed Bessler to find success just because that person can not figure out how Bessler did it.

    I also put much credence in the opinion of Carl with regards to Bessler's invention. Some skeptics have suggested that Carl was an aging, befuddled member of the nobility who could easily have been deceived by Bessler. Once one studies Carl's biography, this notion quickly evaporates. Although he lacked crafting skills of his own, Carl was virtually a scientist himself and as familiar with mechanics as any clockmaker would have been. I don't even see the remote possibility of him being taken in by Bessler.
    If he says that Bessler had the real thing and that it was "simple", that's good enough for me.

    So, my suggestion to the "faithful" out there is to concentrate exclusively on finding the Connectedness Principle and waste as little time as possible with "other" approaches which, in the long term, will achieve nothing. Return to Leupold's Lever Wheel and ask yourself what Bessler meant when he said, in essence, that it could be made to work by application of the Connectedness Principle. WHAT exactly was the Connectedness Principle (are there any other references to it in the Bessler literature besides that one in the notes for MT 9 ?) and HOW could you use it to make that wheel (or one like Bessler used with only 8 weighted levers) work? Obviously, something most extraordinary must have been happening as its weighted levers approach the zenith of the wheel. Those weighted levers needed to "rise in an flash" which, ordinarily (without using the Connectedness Principle, that is) would have been physically impossible.

    Bessler has pointed the way. We who remain faithful should follow his direction or risk being forever lost in a sea of unworkable designs and frustrations which can only ultimately lead to "mobilist burnout": a truly sad way to conclude one's research after decades of hard work.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Just to add my two cents' worth: I agree with Doug in that I can't see any way to extract net energy from gravity. But I wouldn't agree that just because I can't see something, no-one else could ever have seen it. Although we might not like to admit it, we live in a world that has become ever more dysgenic over the last few centuries at least, and the real problem may be that there is no-one alive today with the requisite inventive ability to replicate what Bessler did.

    Currently I'm looking at magnetic interactions, because I have already had some success with those, whereas I've never had any success with a gravity wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Everyone has their own Gartners and Wagners. We have our own on this forum. It sounds like the old sour grapes of if I can't work it out, then it can't be done , it's impossible, its against the laws of physics…

    If it weren't for great thinking men, willing to take a leap in the dark, heavier than air flight would still be considered impossible, iron and steel ships wouldn't have been thought off; the list is endless. For years doctors laboured under many misapprehensions about the human body because no-one had the guts to contradict an ancient physician; we now see these adherents as quacks. Railway speeds of thirty miles and above were considered ridiculous as all the air would be sucked out of the carriages and passengers would die…

    I feel that some things said on this forum are clearly ridiculous, citing technologies that wouldn't be discovered for years (or hundreds of years) and effects so small they're practically immeasurable.

    However, I'm prepared to put up with all these ideas. Someone will find the long lost discovery but it won't be with the help of those who's prime function seems to be to disparage all others ideas. Just because current understanding doesn't explain what's happening doesn't mean that it will never be found.

    Let me put it this way. You can't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket. Just whinging about how small your chances of winning are guarantees that you won't win.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ Great Bear

    Good comment. However, I wouldn't want to make skeptics feel unwelcome here. Although their disbelief might seem unjustified to "true believers" in light of the details of the Bessler story, it is, afterall, up to the believers to PROVE "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that Bessler was not a fraudster. Providing that proof will obviously require duplicating Bessler's wheels such that our 21st century versions conform to all of the clues and hints found in his writings (as best as we can interpret them). Unfortunately, that proof will be far harder for the believers to obtain than the skeptics "proof" of impossibility by merely repeating various established physical laws that Bessler's wheels had, in their opinions, to be violating.

    I have hope that Bessler's secret wheel mechanics will soon be rediscovered because today we have techniques that Bessler would never have anticipated. We have marvelous computer modeling and simulation programs that can allow one to "build" (at least on a monitor screen!) and test a wheel's possible internal mechanics in a matter of minutes. These programs can give accurate predictions about a construction's workability and allow a mobilist to easily plow his way through and eliminate dozens of unorkable designs per month as he continues his search for a working solution.

    GB mentioned how doing PM research is somewhat like playing the lottery. Mainly, one's chance of a jackpot win is always somewhere between zero (if he does not play) and infintesimal (if he plays a few combinations per drawing). But, no matter how one calculates the odds, one has to "be in it to win it". If the believers do not actively search for the secret of Bessler's wheels, then it will NEVER be found!

    Now with simulation software, one can be like a lottery player who plays thousands of combinations per drawing. Remember that one of the reasons Bessler credited for his singular success was that he tried far more OB PM gravity wheel designs than did any of his predecessors or contemporaties. He was like a "heavy duty" lottery player
    playing tens of thousands of combinations per drawing!

    I have sadly seen much negativity about using simulation software on the various free energy sites. I agree that no such program will ever be completely perfect at all times. But, they ARE precise enough about 99% of the time and well worth the efforts of the dedicated mobilist to employ along with his "hands on" efforts to find a solution to Bessler's wheels.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ technoguy
    I'd say that research needs to be encouraged, just like experimentation, and thinking up of radical new ideas. What annoys me is the constant wittering of it can't be done, so give up straight away.

    A while ago I suggested making a list of already tried designs that have failed, such that any future inventors can build on fertile new ground rather than have to start from the same beginnings and duplicate all the tried (and failed) ideas already dismissed.
    Shame nothing happened about it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. There are already websites that have catalogs of failed overbalancing wheel designs, and, the reason why they don't work. Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @ Great Bear

    There is already a VERY extenstive list of failed PM designs. One need only skim through the illustrations of MT to see it. Yet, how many times have we seen some newbie mobilist focus on one of the designs in MT and then try to modify it and turn it into a runner? Even when his fellow mobilists tell him it will never work, he will continue right along convinced that he is right and all of them are wrong.

    It's been my experience that once a mobilist gets an idea into his head, he will not be detered from trying it even if he is told that his approach has been tried 10,000 times before by far more skilled inventors than he without the slightest hint of success. He MUST find this out for himself before he will ever be truly convinced. Such is the nature of the "lone wolf" inventor.

    Yes, the skeptics will continue to deny even the remotest possibility of Bessler having actually invented a genuine PM gravity wheel and their stubborness will continue to be an irritant for those who have dedicated themselves to finding the solution to the mystery of his wheels.

    But, one has to keep in mind that many skeptics (not all though) are just as stubborn in their belief that the known laws of physics prohibit ANY type of PM device as the mobilists are in their belief that it can be done. Such skeptics are, in essence, polar opposites of the mobilists who will only be reconciled to the possibility when a solution is actually finally found to Bessler's wheels or when the last mobilist on Earth finally throws up his hands and says "I give up. This is hopeless and, obviously, impossible! All those skeptics WERE right afterall".

    However, I don't anticipate the latter happening anytime soon!

    ReplyDelete
  63. If there's a comprehensive list of failed mobiles on the web, I've yet to find it. If anyone knows where it is, I'd be grateful for the web address. Likewise, though MT contains many impossible machines, Bessler himself said that someone with a piercing mind could find the secret.
    As for "Even when his fellow mobilists tell him it will never work, he will continue right along convinced that he is right and all of them are wrong", I salute them for at least trying; again this may be exactly what happened to Bessler. As I said earlier, many of the things and ideas suggested on this forum seem improbable. Although I consider the great majority of these as unlikely or impossible, and the mobilist foolhardy, someone may inadvertently find what all the others have missed. Just look at discovery of penicillin, where every reputable and knowledgeable scientist would have discarded the experiment, but it took one great man to say, but what if…

    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...