Well it seems to me that the Italian interview has gone the way of previous offers from the media. I had an email a couple of weeks ago saying that they were unable to obtain permission to film within the Trivulziana library at Castello Sforzesco, which doesn't surprise me, so an alternative date has been promised for an interview in Rome. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation, but if something concrete does materialise I'll let you know.
My own efforts to reconstruct Bessler's wheel progress at a snail's pace because of frequent calls on my time from other commitments. I'm busy trying to make my garden (yard?) fox-proof at the present. We have a problem with urban foxes and they seem to be living next door - you should see the holes leading to their dens! Now back to matters Bessler.
Some years ago David E. Cowlishaw produced an invention he called a Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster, this was a way of the mechanically generating a unidirectional force, with which it was hoped one could direct a vehicle or a boat, in any direction, or indeed drive a space ship. It would replace gear trains, propellers and jets, as a device for generating thrust
It was said that this device was a consequence of the variable inertia property of matter. I would suggest that it was an example of parametric oscillation.
If Bessler's wheel is successfully built, it too will rely on parametric oscillation, (see my article on 'kiiking') and might show the way to a successful inertial propulsion engine - providing the correct configuration is used, to swing weights around, in such a way that the circular movement ends up producing a unidirectional thrust. In much the same way that an electric motor reversed becomes an electricity generator, so Bessler's wheel reversed, or driven, could be designed to produce a unidirectional force from weights rotating about the wheel axle.
There have been a number of claims to have successfully built an inertial thrust engine but I am not aware of any reliable examples - although someone may correct this impression. The point I am making here is that, just as in theory one could reverse the direction of energy in Bessler's wheel to produce linear force and motion and this would prove that inertial propulsion engines were a valid area of research, so on the other hand would the successful construction of an inertial propulsion engine also prove that Bessler's wheel was a valid area for research.
JC
I'm pretty sure no one has built an inertial thrust engine, just as no one has built a bessler wheel.
ReplyDeleteThe reason no one has built an inertial thrust engine is simple - forces don't behave that way. How would such an engine comply with Newton's third?
Hi John,..You have to deal with the foxes and I have to deal with the monkeys pintching food out the kitchen,I tell you there's a conpiracy to distract us and prevent us from completing the wheel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Doug in the first instance but as far as the second,I beg to differ.The wheel is about to make an appearance,including those obfuscating pendulums and all.
A film company that can't get permission to do an interview (maximum needed: three people, one of which is you) in a library after hours?! Now, I've heard everything! Maybe the library administrators are afraid one of you will pinch a rare book when they're not looking so you can sell it later on ebay! LOL!
ReplyDeleteParametric oscillation the "secret" of Bessler's wheels? Hmmm...depending upon how one defines the term, that might not be too far from the truth. Technically, a PM gravity wheel containing weighted levers CAN be considered to be an oscillator since, if viewed on edge, one would see its weights moving back and forth from one side of the axle to the other.
Parametric? Sure, if the CoM of the weights is always on the wheel's descending side, then the wheel varies the distance of a weight from the axle every other half cycle of oscillation or, in this case, rotation. Somewhat like a swing with a rider, the wheel continously "pumps" itself by continuously maintaining the CoM of its weights on its descending side.
Inertial thruster? Ain't no such animal in the REAL world. Even Bessler's wheels did not violate Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.
Milkovic has shown a few simple but nice experiments converting potential energy -from oscillations- to kinetic energy, here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GuTMYgQDUzs
Others have done so in the past as well, including Laithwaite.
Andre, it's the same ratio of input to output; not an excess. Think, brother.
ReplyDeleteThe rod accounts for the extra distance.
Doug I know - it's just demonstrating potential to kinetic energy. Still, interesting -sometimes counterintuitive- effects can be observed with these experiments. The ISD I was talking about quite a while ago is one of such systems. A not very well understood (or researched) invention by Tesla had a interesting (and more complex) variety of that too, with -basically- four rotating arms (arranged in a square), driven my miter gears. I've seen some amazing experiments with it, but it's very hard to replicate successfully since it needs enormous RPM's (above 20.000), and has to be very light yet strong to see definite effects - but it does have some amazing properties. Tesla claimed it would be part of his flying machine (not aeroplane), probably intended to be driven by his turbines.
ReplyDeleteSeveral decades ago there was a book published by a guy named T. B. Pawlicki in which he presented the design for a device he called a "rectified centrifuge" that he claimed could produce a one directional or "inertial" force. He even had designs for aircraft that would use these devices to provide lift and thrust, all without expelling any mass in the process.
ReplyDeleteHis rectified centrifuge consisted of a heavy metal bar that was made to rotate within a circular track by a motor driven shaft that was offset from the center of the circular track. This shaft had a well lubricated hole at its end through which the bar could easily slide back and forth. The ends of the rod then slid along the inner circular wall of the track as the rod moved back and forth through the hole in the shaft. He claimed that it would be possible for the circular track to force one end of the bar to swing out farther from the shaft than the other end and that farther flung end would be moving faster than the shorter end of the rod. The imbalance in CF that this caused would then produce a significant amount of unidirectional thrust. Several of the devices could easily lift an aircraft weighing tens of tons!
The design looked impressive at first glance until one realized that the rod, if rigid and held in a circular track, would jam up before it had rotated through even 90°! It's obvious to me that Pawlicki never actually build this device or he would have realized that it was unworkable.
However, I've often wondered what would happen if this device was made using a two piece telescoping metal rod instead of a rigid one. In such a case it does seem that for every 180° of rotation of the length variable rod, the longer end would always be moving faster and producing more CF than the opposite slower moving shorter end and the result would, in fact, be a net one directional force!
Tesla's contraption was intended to do the same thing and he too envisioned its use in a "wingless" aircraft. But, Pawlicki's device is far simpler to construct and I am surprised that more inventors have not worked with it.
Techno, I just learned about US patent 7,900,874 that sort-of claims to do just that, producing linear acceleration. Actually it's about two inventions in one: HMT and VMT (Horizontal Motion by Mass Transfer (HMT) and VMT, *vertical* motion by Mass Transfer).
ReplyDeleteAccording to the inventors, the device employs two separate processes that do not require a propellant and do *not* produce an equal and opposite reaction against any external form of matter in the Local Inertial Reference Frame and do not violate Newton's Laws in the Universal Reference Frame. The first process produces horizontal motion, relies on the earth's gravitational field as an external force, and has been successfully tested, they claim. The second process produces vertical motion and relies only on the aether. It has been successfully tested considering the effect of the earth's gravity.
Due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the first process is normally considered not possible, but with the proper use of an external field (for example, gravity) and the phenomenon of precession, it becomes possible, so they claim.
Interesting is also that they mention consulting physicists: "After consulting with prominent physicists, based on current definitions, the earth's gravity is definitely considered an external field (and force)".
some of this stuff sort of looks like
ReplyDeletethis bogus looking invention I saw this morning:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1368/464/Patent_Claims_Anti-Gravity_Device_Could_Power_Flying_Saucers,_Cars_And_Toys.html
Says he has a patent (?!) ...don't see any videos!
that's the same invention Andre is talking about.
ReplyDeleteThe USPtO page is here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=11&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=ANTI-GRAVITY&OS=ANTI-GRAVITY&RS=ANTI-GRAVITY
It was filed in January '08.
That has got to be one of the longest patent abstracts I've ever plowed through! LOL!
ReplyDeleteWell, fancy gryroscopes are nice, but any sixth grade science student could make a simple little cart with a swinging pendulum mounted on it that will, as the pendulum swings, actually advance in only one direction. The "secret" is to have the cart drag a stick behind it with an eraser attached to its end that touches the surface of the floor or table at such an angle so as to prevent the cart from rolling backward when its pendulum's bob weight swings forward. True, the motion will be a bit jerky, but the cart will undergo a net horizontal motion. This method, through the use of pulleys, can also be used to raise a cart vertically, but, again, the motion will be jerky. (In this case, the cart must rise between parallel walls and have four spring loaded arms extend away from it in order to hold the erasers against the wall's surface to prevent the cart from sinking).
Well, I took another look at the Pawlicki "rectified centrifuge" and realized why it will NOT work. The problem with it (and ALL other such devices) is that in order to shift its heavy metal bar about as its motor driven axle spins requires that alot of force be applied by the back half of the circular guide track to the end of the bar that becomes shorter. That force directly and, most importantly, EXACTLY opposes the forward direction of the net CF produced by the lengthening end of the rotating metal bar.
When all of the smoke of these exotic gadgets finally dissipates in time, only Johann Bessler's wheels will be the ones that keep on turning!
Centrifugal force is equally opposed by the centripetal force that is responsible for it. It's a mistake to invoke it as a basis for research or as a force that could be amplified. If we amplify CF, the Cp force is amplified equally. Gyroscopes fall into that category (and pendulums, sorry Trevor!).
ReplyDeleteThink renewable.
@ Doug
ReplyDeleteAgreed! All of the so-called "inertial drives" I've seen just oscillate back and forth a bit or, at best, creep along and in those cases they are literally swimming through the air due to the fanning action of their various swinging parts.
Even that little cart I described above is not immune to this problem although it is alot less obvious for it. On the forward swing of its pendulum, the eraser brake will keep it stationary with respect to the surface beneath it. BUT, then the entire Earth and the cart move in the opposite direction from the forward motion of the pendulum. Of course, their far greater mass than the pendulum bob makes this motion imperceptible.
The true test of any alleged inertial drive is whether or not it can produce net translational motion when weightless in the vacuum of space. If one of them could ever do that, then I might admit we need to revise the 3rd Law of Motion.
Sorry Doug ,..There are things about the pendulum that have been overlooked.I won't say more at this stage as it involves the principle that Bessler referred to.
ReplyDeleteParaphrasing Archimedes:
ReplyDeleteGive me a place to hang a pendulum and I can move the earth.
I've spent much time thinking lately and discussing various methods with knowledgeable friends. While I don't like to pour cold water on anyone's ideas, there are some that I won't be entertaining, like the parametric oscillator ideas. The idea of the swing works, but art a tremendous energy input. Ask anyone who's been on a swing for a while, and there's even TV's "mythbusters", that show that while it can be done, the subject comes off absolutely exhausted. If this is supposed to provide a surplus of energy anywhere, it's yet to be seen.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that did grab me was the idea of inertial thrust, and it bough back memories of the version of the device invented in the seventies, (or was it the eighties). I think it was the BBC that showed the chap building it and his discussions with the patent office. He stated that the application for his motor was for space travel - in moving a spaceship to some destination. Note that this was not an anti-gravity device, and moved things foreward rather than upwards. I can't recall the chap's name and unfortunately this is before the days of the internet. If I recall correctly, he started off on the premise that things are lighter when they spin fast. An example was shown where a shaft with a "wheel" was attached to the end was wheeled in on a trolley because it couldn't be lifted. When the wheel at the end was spun up to speed, the whole device could easily be lifted and swung above ones head. Obviously it was a gyroscopic effect and he used this to develop his propulsive system.
If I remember any more, I'll post it here.
Eric Laithwaite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Laithwaite
DeleteIt might have been Sandy Kidd?
ReplyDeleteJC
http://www.gyroscopes.org/propulsion.asp
ReplyDeleteHere is a good reference
@Trevor I don't think Bessler used pendulums. Multiple pendulums on a same structure is a chaotic system. It is very hard to control the motion of a such system. This video shows what I am trying to say; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foZHjI8Lydo . May be he used some kind of control mechanism, but it is highly unlikely in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think it was Prof. Laithwaite that did a demonstration during the '70's in which he used a 10 lb gyroscope at the end of a pole several feet long. When the gyroscope was not spinning, it was extremely difficult to lift or even hold the pole out horizontally. However, when spinning, the device seemed so light that a child could easily lift it over his head!
ReplyDeleteYes, a very impressive demonstration, but then again so is using a simple pulley arrangement to lift a heavy weight. I suspect that these gyroscope demonstrations are basically doing what a block and tackle would do. That is, the twisting and turning they introduce into lifting a mass vertically against the pull of gravity spreads the force that need be applied to the load over a greater distance so as to lower the required force. The longer path that the gyroscope must follow is not obvious to the user at the time and he then mistakenly thinks the gyroscope has lost mass. It hasn't anymore than a weight being lifted by a block and tackle.
What has all of this to do with Bessler's wheels? Absolutely nothing.. Just yet another distraction that will keep 99 out of 100 mobilists from pursuing the methods that Bessler DID use!.
Does anyone here seriously think that Bessler employed spinning gyroscopes inside of his wheels?! I certainly do not.
Bessler did say the the wheel's power was proportional to the swing of the pendulum weights and they did work in pairs,so they were balanced.
ReplyDeleteThey also were co-ordinated so that tells me there was some kind of movement which had to be correctly timed and it was not chaotic.
I have been able to get a wheel to turn very positively just using two balanced pendulums.The only problem is how to keep the pendulums swinging.It's real headache!
I dont think anyone thinks he used gyroscopes, but they offer a good lesson in how forces can do things that seem to bend the rules.
ReplyDeleteLike the way they seem to defy gravity, when one is shown spinning around, only supported at one end.
It's a seductive image, but nothing is happening that can't be explained.
If someone showed one spinning with both supports gone, now that would be impressive.
Trevor, good luck
Okay, Bessler also suggests in the notes to MT 9 that Leupold's weighted lever PM gravity wheel design can be made to work by applying the "Connectedness Principle" to it.
ReplyDeleteIf one looks at the weighted levers in Leupold's wheel, it is obvious that they are NOT permitted to act like "free pendulums" because they are confined to only swing through a limited arc between peg stops attached to the carrier wheel. From studying Leupold's design, it is also obvious to me that it would work if there was some way of causing the ascending side (right side in the drawing) levers to rapidly swing back toward their outer stops (and thus rise faster than the rim of the wheel) as they approached the zenith of the wheel. Apparently, Bessler found a way to do this using only eight weighted levers and they were "coordinated" by carefully connecting the levers together with cords so that they would keep the CoM of their weights always on the wheel's descending side. (NB: The fact that the levers were interconnected with cords or ropes again suggests that they were not "free" as one would expect regular pendulums to be.)
If someone is seriously and, most importantly, ACTIVELY trying to solve the Bessler mystery, then designs like Leupold's lever wheel, IMO, are where he should be focusing 100% of his attention and efforts (and, unlike Leupold, just working with eight weighted levers). Everything else is just a DISTRACTION that will lead nowhere.
Lately, I have been visiting various free energy sites to see what was said about Bessler's wheels in the past. Interestingly enough, the language has not changed much in the last DECADE. Then as now there is much talk about clues, secret codes, pendulums, gyroscopes, inertial drives, and a plethora of misquotes / mistranslations from the Bessler literature, And, of course, about 90% of the content posted had little if anything to even do with Bessler! In short, in a decade NOTHING has really changed that much! Now I'm wondering exactly how long this situation will persist into the future!
We desperately need a REAL breakthrough with this Bessler mystery and the sooner the better!
Your repeating yourself John, you already covered this on a post blog over a year ago.
ReplyDeleteIt's a sign of advancing age, anon :-)
ReplyDeleteI did take a quick look but I didn't find it.
JC
Andre has revised his drawings again and I have replaced the original revision with version 2.1
ReplyDeleteJC
Yay,..Good show guys!
ReplyDeleteNow,will the displacement of M1 times distance be equal to the displacement of M2 times distance.If it is, then you only have unity out.
No offence intended.
Andre's new 2.1 version of his four mechanism wheel is certainly a step in the right direction. At least he now has only ONE smaller shifted weight in each quadrant. :)
ReplyDeleteBUT, the design is still somewhat deceptive. It shows the four larger cylindrical weights as being equidistant from the axle. This then leads one to conclude that their CoM is located at the center of the axle and, indeed, that the placements of the four smaller shifted weights, whose CoM IS located to the right of the axle on the intended descending side, will then imbalance the whole wheel and produce continuous rotation.
In reality, the CoM of the four larger cylindrical shifter weights in located nearer the axle in the lower left quadrant. The combined CoM for all eight weights will then be located very near or actually at the location directly under the axle due to large difference in mass between the shifter and shifted weights. This, of course, means there will be little or no torque to rotate the structure.
I wonder if it would be possible to have BOTH a larger shifter and smaller shifted weight located in the SAME quadrant? Hmmm...probably not possible, but certainly something to ponder.
Oh well,..Its back to the drawing board for me,my latest design is a washout,but then Doug, I suppose you knew that.
ReplyDeleteFrom now on it's no more mister nice guy,I'm pulling out all the stops to test a new radical concept and trust me it won't be pretty.
I'm picking up on something Bessler said in the first line of the clues.He said,in the wheel there are many small weights.
There will always be pendulums though,don't forget the pendulums,they are the lively children referred to.
@Techo, grrr, yes, the placement is now correct :-)
ReplyDeleteAlso, note that there are a few more changes. The angle of the green 'actuator' arms is larger, allowing for more leverage at the pivot. The shape of the arm connected to the armature is also different. In my estimate, this allows for a smaller mass of the M1 shifter weight and thus a better (more effective) ratio between M1 and M2. It also allows for a larger mass for M2. This should improve the odds somewhat.
I've been toying with the idea to come up with some kind of mechanism that would reduce the need for heavy shifter masses further. I'm thinking of some kind of oscillatory mechanism which would help shift the M1 weights by (temporarily) connecting (connectedness?) to the green arms. Ideal would be, of course, if the mass of the M2 weights could be equal or higher than the shifter weights.