Saturday, 31 December 2011

A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

I wish everyone a prosperous and successful 2012, but above all a HAPPY one.!

157 days to go to the 300th anniverary of Bessler's first wheel. Professor Hal Puthoff wrote in an email to me yesterday to say that he was "still standing ready to provide opportunity for globalizing a useful technology. May 2012 be the year!"

When I replied, I mentioned the 300th anniversary coming up and he said, "what a wonderful way to celebrate the 300th anniversary - to announce it had finally been replicated! I'll keep my fingers and toes crossed!"

I believe circumstances are driving us towards this anniversary and a successful replication of Bessler's wheel.  Pollution from fossil fuels, increasing cost of recovering dwindling oil resevoirs, the lack of good alternative energy solutions - and the knowledge that the real solution lies almost with our grasp!

I believe it will happen in 2012 and I hope it will be me, but if anyone else does it I shall still be as happy as a dog with two tails!

JC

114 comments:

  1. @ JC

    Yes John, I’m with you 100% there, I also believe that this is the year a Bessler Wheel will finally turn again.
    I hope it will be me, but if not, then I hope it will be you.

    Happy New Year to Everyone

    JW

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's highly significant to see that Hal Puthoff retains his interest. I well remember, back in the 1970's, reading his paper on remote viewing (co-authored with Russel Targ): "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer..." see http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1454382

    I have long thought that one of the best ways to gain new information on Bessler's wheel would be to use remote viewing methods on it again. See the pioneering work done by Alfred Evert and Manfred Jelinski at http://www.evert.de/eft704e.htm.

    As Puthoff would know, remote viewing often works even better the second or third time around. I truly believe that more, well organized, remote viewing sessions on Bessler's wheel could deliver a real breakthrough. Would Puthoff be prepared to use his influence/contacts to help?

    Happy New Year to all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I found a better link for the full paper by Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ on Targ's website http://www.espresearch.com/espgeneral/IEEE-329B.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  4. I personally would rather use my inginuity to solve the problem,we must not give way to desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is an interesting thought. Harold Putoff reached the highest level in Scientology, where you are suppose to be able to have control over time and space, and with his remote viewing abilities, will he tap into the Bessler truth?
    HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    ReplyDelete
  6. HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

    I sincerely hope that each and every person reading this has a properous and healthy new year and finds himself much closer to attaining his personal dreams. I also like to use this time of the year to reflect on the previous year and to thank GOD that I made it through those past twelve months again. Now let's hope the same applies to the next year...

    Hmmm...remote viewing to determine the secret of Bessler's wheels?

    Well, I DO believe in remote viewing, but I am only aware of it being done for remote scenes which PRESENTLY exist. I don't think it would work for something that existed hundreds of years ago. If it did, then it would be a form of reverse time travel which is supposed to be impossible.

    Instead of remote viewing, why not try a form of creative meditation to gain insight into the internal mechanics of Bessler's wheels? Just put yourself into a relaxed meditative state and then go over all of the Bessler drawings. Ask yourself what is the "general" message that he is trying to convey to the viewer with them. Then ask yourself what mechanisms does he seem to dwell on and why. Also take into account any notes he included with the figures and the phrasing he uses in them.

    I think that if one does this regularly, he will find that all of Bessler's clues ultimately point toward a SINGLE approach. But don't think you will be able to just imagine your way to a solution. You will have to also "Build, baby, build" or, better yet, "Simulate, baby, simulate". Be prepared to plow your way through hundreds (maybe even thousands!) of possible designs while, with each failure you experience, you try to determine what went wrong. In most cases, the answer will be simple: the design did not manage to keep the CoM of its weights on the wheel's descending side. The next thing you have to do is try to correct for that problem with your next model.

    Don't give up...Bessler might have been called many things, but "quitter" was NOT one of them!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I once asked Hal about his work with remote-viewers and told him I had done some reading on his work, and he said don't believe everything you read about it. Enough said?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  8. John, is Hal Puthoff now saying we shouldn't believe that paper of his in the March 1976 issue of the "Proceedings of the IEEE" that I linked above? The IEEE is the largest professional association on Earth, and one of the most conservative and orthodox.

    I'm well aware that the CIA has tried hard to discredit remote viewing, starting in about 1995. I guess we now know where Puthoff's loyalties lie. A pity, but he's not the only expert.

    Another link for the Evert/Jalinski work on remote viewing Bessler's wheel is at http://www.evert.de/eft782e.htm.

    To me, it's astonishing that these remote viewers came up with the information they did, given that they were supplied with nothing more than three coded numbers as their target.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No Arktos, I'm not questioning the science papers, I had read books and articles about, and by, a couple of the remote viewer, McMoneagle and Swann, and discussed them with Hal - and that's when he said don't believe everything you read about remote viewing. I think his view concorded with technoguy's, that it could only work in the present.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Arktos

    I found your comment that the CIA was actively trying to discredit remote viewing starting around 1995 interesting because I remember reading somewhere that the US military actually had a secret project named "Scanate" which was started in the '60's and used remote viewers for espionage purposes.

    Supposedly, Project Scanate was set up because it became apparent that the Soviets were heavily involved in psychic research of all types and remoting viewing was one of their priorities. Each side in the Cold War hoped to be able to remotely view what was going on in the other's laboratories in an effort to steal the other's military secrets. Project Scanate was eventually terminated because it became obvious that it could not produce enough detailed information such as the contents of files, schematics, blueprints, etc. However, this project DID prove that remote viewing could give accurate general information about the layout of buildings in remote regions of the Earth. Now, of course, we rely upon spy satellites for that whose optical systems are precise enough to allow the license plates on an automobile to be read from orbit!

    I'd gladly trade all of the remote viewing information concerning Bessler's wheels for a single glimpse at just ONE of the intact levers that he used inside of his drums. If I could just see that, then I could extrapolate the rest of the wheel and have one up and running in no time!

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Technoguy

    (I have left a comment for you on the preceding page of this blogg in response to your last)

    On this page you raise another interesting point, it has certainly been a thought in my mind for many years; how wonderfully helpful and informative it would be to be in possession of just one piece of a Bessler machine. The thought that this might even be a possibility for someone was prompted by JC himself in his Bessler biography;

    “Even when he died, the one remaining model of his machine was found in pieces” PMAAS p53

    repeated again later;

    “When he died, the machine was found to be in pieces” PMAAS p171

    Ever since reading these lines I have wondered WHO found a machine in pieces, and WHERE are those pieces now?

    JC, can you tell us any more about this?

    JW

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ John Worton

    Most likely his wife or son would have found the remains of the small demonstration wheel he had completed for possible sale to the Royal Society. When that deal fell through Bessler would have coped with his frustration by responding in his "usual" way with an AX! But, JC would know more about this and what happened to the rest of Bessler's estate.

    Where's that wheel's debris now? Most likely the wood was used in a fireplace for heat. Those winters in Germany can be brutal. (Interestingly, due to the intermixing of atmospheric gases over the last three centuries, each of us probably inhales a few of the carbon or oxygen or hydrogen atoms that were once in Bessler's wheels with each breath we take!)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've been viewing the perpetual motion structures of the universe remotely today.

    Interestingly, none of those structures are physically connected; only gravitationally. When bodies are connected, gravity not only has to lift (or rotate) the mass of the ascending body, it has to lift the mass of the connections.

    For all you lurking, anonymous, PM newbie mobilists out there, if you're connecting your weights together, you only need to go through ONE design before this impasse becomes apparent.

    Breathe deep.Meditate on the universal chi. May the gravitational force be with you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Technoguy

    How fascinating: How differently we interpret the same words!

    Yes I definitely do think the line "...it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes." refers to the axle. It doesn’t matter how many times I read and reread it I simply cannot see how you get to your drum description interpretation. I do not dispute the fact that there were ‘rim holes’ but do not see how they are being referred to here;

    “Ask any of those who have groped INSIDE my Wheel and grasped ITS AXLE - and you will be assured, in no uncertain terms, that MY AXLE is not like that. Rather, IT has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes”

    Given this impasse I have two ideas. The first is that you are a German speaker and have been able to read the original document and therefore know more than the rest of us (you are able to look beyond the limitations of the translation we are quoting from) The second is that this is an example of you making the clues fit your own precious theory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ Doug

    I think you need to visit a remote viewing optometrist!

    Those connections between the weighted levers inside of Bessler's drums were made of CORD which is just a bit larger in diameter than string. They were very light in weight. Probably in his entire Merseburg wheel, the various cords did not weigh more than a few pounds if that.


    @ John Worton

    Just prior to the quote you provided, Bessler is describing the report he heard of Christian Wagner's wheel which had a "split axle held together by a peg". The peg was actually an offset steel pin that was driven by a connecting rod from the dual mainspring powered clockwork mechanism that hung from two other steel pins located in the center of the wheel's axle at its ends inside the drum (this mechanism always hung vertically from these center axle pins and did not revolve with his wheel). In other words, what Wagner had was NOT a genuine OB PM gravity wheel like Bessler's.

    Clearly, in the first sentence of your quote Bessler is telling the reader that his wheels do not have split axles or any type of attached clockwork mechanism that powers them as Wagner's wheel did. The "it" of the last line can not refer to Bessler's axle because he has already tried to impress upon the reader that his axle is a solid piece of wood without any breaks in it that have to use steel pins to bridge. No, the "it" of that last line MUST refer to his wheel's DRUM and not its axle.

    Think about it this way. IF the "it" truly referred to the axle, then how structurally strong would it be? Would an axle riddled with holes and "compartments" be able to remain intact when the entire wheel, weighing HUNDREDS of pounds, was suddenly dropped onto pivots located at its axle's ends? Most likely, anything other than a solid wooden axle would either flex enough to pull its pivots off of their bearings or would actually snap in half!

    I don't really think I am making the translation fit my theory, but rather just PROPERLY interpreting the translations and basing my theory on that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tguyness, I think you need to visit a psychiatrist.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Doug

    Based on your years of experience with them, can you recommend one for me? 8P

    ReplyDelete
  18. There's one in the same office space with the remote viewing optometrist.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Doug

    How convenient it must have been for you to visit two professionals in the same building. 8P

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just heard through the rumor mill that Dr. H Putshoff is on the case. Good wishes and let us hope! The mechanics should be found in no time. :) :) :)!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle" - "Rather, it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes." - pg 336

    ReplyDelete
  22. Tguyness, are you conceding? We understand, it's a tough position to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Doug

    What exactly is that "tough position to defend" which you think I might be conceding? 8^D

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cords, springs, multi-armed levers. Pay attention, tguyness.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ Doug

    NO concession EVER from me on them!

    Bessler's wheels contained only weighted levers, gravity activated latches (only in the two directional wheels), interconnecting cords, and springs. There were no pulleys, gears, lodestones, tanks of compressed air, or Leyden jars.

    Whoever finds the correct lever design and cord scheme he used will solve the wheel mystery. It won't be done with remote viewing, psychometry, or by channeling the spirit of Bessler. It will, unfortunately, require THOUSANDS of hours of hard work. That guarantees that about 999 out 1000 newbie mobilists will not have what it takes to succeed.

    However, I HAVE often wondered if Bessler's widow did not stick one of the less damaged levers from his last destroyed demo wheel into his casket so it could be buried with him! In that way his casket could serve as a kind of time capsule which would, if it was hermetically sealed, preserve his secret for a future time.

    Hmmm...I wonder how difficult it would be to find his grave and exhume it? Might be VERY interesting to see what was placed in his casket with him!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ah well. I guess it will take thousands of hours of work to persuade you otherwise.
    I doubt it though. You don't sound mechanically inclined.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hey! Can we get Hank Puthoff to throw us some clues?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I personally get the impression that the holes were made in the drum because he said they for restoring what ever had gone wrong,..maybe a cord had slipped off a pulley for instance,or the mechanisms got intertangled.
    I think the only way we are going to solve this is to take all the definite relevant clues,put them together and try to visualise how the mechanism could work,bearing in mind it had to be smooth and fast acting for eight weights on arms,not levers,to work.
    I'm sorry, but I sense an air of desperation here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Despair not Trevor, for on this day the new John the Baptist, and the Lord have sent us a hero in the form of A1 Dr. Hal. Will he be kind and open the pod bay doors to let us in? In the heat of the moment, only time will tell, if the serpent catches the sphere. Pray with me that we are led unto salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Trevor

    Personally I agree with your sentiment that we should all be a team working together. However as Technoguy has correctly pointed out the reality is that everyone squirrels his nuts away, nobody is interested in teamwork.

    I also like your idea of “definitive relevant clues”. I thought a while ago to propose that we all list our ‘top five clues’ (not that I wish to encourage anymore pentamania) but have not done so because I think the result would be total chaos. I doubt very much that we could even agree on the “definitive relevant clues” never mind their interpretation. For example I think that Bessler’s signature is a major clue, but as far as I’m aware I’m the only person who thinks it’s a clue at all!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thank you for some intelligent response that is focussed on our goal.
    One of the clues I feel has been brushed over is his remark at the beginning of his clues.
    Bessler said,'In the wheel there are many small weights'.Does he mean in addition to the eight heavey weights? If so,it's possible they could be there to excite an action.
    We have to believe what Bessler said,..that it was only gravity that turned the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I hate to argue but Bessler never said any of those things can you show me where he said that? I believe you're misquoting undertaking license to interpret something that isn't there.

    ReplyDelete
  33. John knows beter than me what Bessler said or did not say.Maybe he can help out.

    ReplyDelete
  34. From Apologia Poetica, "So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead."

    I assume that is what you meant Trevor?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yes John ,..Thats the gist of it,although i've see it some where put slightly differently.
    One can't be to careful about errors in translation.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There are already several lists of clues floating around on the web and they tend to overlap each other. Rather than compile endless lists, maybe each of us could just quote the text clue we find most interesting / puzzling and then see what feedback it creates. As the Bible says, "There is wisdom in a multitude of councilors".

    However, perhaps the MOST important clues Bessler gives are in his drawings. I have already gone over these with a mental electron microscope and found some VERY interesting things which have never even been considered by those previously posting on the internet. All I can say at this point it that all of these "image" clues have led me toward a single design which is, of course, the one I promote in my comments here.

    One must, however, be on his quard not to let clue analysis become a substitute for building something either in the shop or, preferably, on a computer monitor. Mobilists have been analyzing Bessler clues for centuries and I suspect that 99.99+% of the time it only became a distraction that ultimately LESSENED their chance of actually solving the Bessler wheel mystery! Yes, I know that sounds paradoxical, but life tends to be filled with inconsistencies.

    I've also noticed that most squirrels would rather fight than share their tasty nuts with other squirrels other than their own young and even then only for the shortest time possible. Maybe squirrels have a more realistic world view than humans!


    @ Trevor D.

    With a two directional wheel containing two sub wheels EACH of which contained 8 cylindrical weights the total number of weights is 16. For the Merseburg wheel that used 4 lb weights, there was a total of 16 wts x 4 lb/wt = 64 lbs of lead contained inside its drum. I would certainly use the word "many" to describe 16 weights.

    ReplyDelete
  37. My favorite clue "rain drips down, snow falls."

    ReplyDelete
  38. "by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it."

    "firstly, I shall relate the cause of FIRE, and then the nature and operation of it; secondly, the properties of other ELEMENTS; and, thirdly, the nature of COLD, the cause of perpetual Motion, the essence of the Sun, and the reason for the movements of the Sky, Moon, Sea and Earth;

    ReplyDelete
  39. Doug quotes:

    "who...have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it"

    Yes, it WAS just a simple OB wheel that depended upon gravity for its operation. There IS a way to make Leupold's lever wheel (and its variants) work...Bessler found it and the lost secret WILL eventually be rediscovered!

    ReplyDelete
  40. He didn't say that was where he eventually found it.
    And nature concurs.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ Doug

    Before your quote (on pg. 366), Bessler wrote:

    "All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of 'excess weight') that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them."

    Certainly sounds like Bessler says the "wise ones" were trying to build working OB wheels which is where he finally found success as suggested in your quote.

    ReplyDelete
  42. That's what you think.
    I think he is saying in the previous comment that the familiar things won't be successful.
    "Intelligent people with true understanding" has a different context than "wise ones"
    The intelligent people were looking in the right place( where he found it).
    The wise ones were looking in the wrong place.(excess weight, "gravitas").

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Doug

    But, even a few pages earlier than my quote from pg. 366 we read:

    "Even according to the ideas my enemies express in their writings, my Wheel is the true device, and is indeed, per se, a genuine Perpetuum Mobile. None better will ever be found upon this earth, for without the principle that I alone possess, there can be no real perpetual motion. Whoever seeks another method is deceiving himself, for my device does not need winding; it runs according to “preponderance”, and turns everything else along with it; so long as its material shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord. On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be. That which hitherto has been impossible, was vouchsafed to me to discover."

    Bessler AGAIN emphasizes here that his wheel "runs according to 'prepondreance'" and "On one side...is heavy; on the other...light" which STILL sounds like an OB wheel to me!

    ReplyDelete
  44. To me, with preponderance in quotes, it sounds like the clue is telling us that preponderance has an alternate meaning here.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes Doug,.. This is a very important clue.It speaks to me as being an over-population of weights on the one side for at least half a cycle.
    Here enters the pendulum again!

    ReplyDelete
  46. And from DT page 191:


    "For this concept, my 'principle of excess weight'" ... "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."


    Bessler is telling us that the motion of a wheel arises because the CoM of its weights is offset from the center of gravity of the drum located at the center of the axle. For continous rotation to occur, the CoM must remain offset from the center of the axle.

    I can not see how anybody could dispute that Bessler's wheels were OB wheels after reading quotes like this. I think the real issue here is whether one believes that the offset CoM of the weights was maintained strictly by gravity or that some vague "environmental energy source" was responsible.

    Even this question is repeatedly answered by Bessler. He tells us in several places that the weights inside the drum were SOLELY responsible for its motion and nothing else. I believe Bessler!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Nature concurs with me.

    You have your favorite clues, and I have mine. I suggest reading them for hidden meaning, they don't mean what they say. That's why they are clues. They aren't facts. They're written to hide what is the truth.
    Or don't; read them literally if you want, I don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @ Doug

    So when I read something like:

    "...these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity..."

    then I'm supposed to assume that they don't actually mean what they literally say but that they have some "hidden" meaning?

    If that is the case, then one could claim that there is nothing in Bessler's writings / drawings of any real value because they have nothing to do with the actual PM principles he employed. Thus, maybe one should just then dispense with reading any of the Bessler literature looking for answers!! (And there goes JC's book profits!!!).

    I know that Bessler did not deliver the whole truth in his descriptions of how his wheels worked because there are several places where he declines to "go into detail" on certain issues. However, I have no reason to believe that he was deliberately lying or misdirecting with what little he does reveal. I'm sure that, considering how religious he was and that Count Carl was probably reading everything he wrote, he would not have stooped to outright misdirection.

    If today's mobilists can not agree on such a fundamental issue as to whether or not Bessler's wheels were, in fact, GRAVITY activated OB type wheels, then I see little hope of this mystery EVER being solved!

    ReplyDelete
  49. That's right. If you notice, all of his clues describe a typical OB wheel. There are only so many ways to describe an OB wheel. So the majority of his writings and drawings are redundant, and/or taken from other sources.
    Don't you wonder why he doesn't go into detail in several places? What do those places have in common?
    We already know from history (and physics) that OB wheels don't work. He even mentions he found it out the hard way.

    "Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through bitter experience." - pg 295-296

    I don't see how anyone can read that and still think he built OB wheels.Do you believe him when he says that? He's saying his wheels aren't typical OB wheels.
    So we have history, physics, and a clue from bessler himself saying that his wheels can't be classic OB wheels; they are something else.
    He could have built them to have their initial few turns activated by gravity. But to sustain them he had to have something else besides OB; he even tells you that in the clue above.
    He didn't have to lie or misdirect. He only had to leave out the part that we have to figure out.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @ Doug

    I will agree that Bessler had something "extra" going on in his OB wheels that his predescessors and contemporaries did not have in their wheels and that extra something was what made Bessler's wheels work.

    However, I am NOT convinced that something extra was a way of tapping some external "environmental energy source". We have already dismissed EVERY plausible external energy source that he could have used...even one's that were not yet available in the early 18th century!

    I think that extra something was, as Bessler mentions in the notes to MT 9 and 10, a special way of interconnecting his weighted levers with cords so as to "coordinate" their shifting motions and a special lever design. I also believe that his design relied critically upon springs as suggested in MT 18. How many mobilists then or now even interconnected their weighted levers or used springs? Not many. Most then and now are still trying to make "sphere wheels" work or think they can somehow use CF to shift their weights around so as to keep their CoM on their wheels' descending sides.

    There is a danger in relying solely upon historical precedent in trying to prove that something can not be done. Granted, no one, other than Bessler, ever made a gravity activated OB wheel run, but that in no way "proves" that it absolutely can not be done. It only takes one black swan to prove that not all swans are white. Bessler's wheels were the mechanical equivalent of those metaphorical black swans!

    If you think you have a possible explanation for how Bessler's wheels actually worked, then why not reveal it here so we can decide whether or not it is plausible? Just think of it, you could save us "gravity only" mobilists so much time, effort, and expense with your alternative explanation based on what you interpret the hidden meanings of Bessler's writings to be.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well if you can't figure out how his wheels could tap energy, then, obviously, you won't be discovering the secret of PM anytime soon. I discovered this trick when I was only ten years old.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Tech...wrote
    "However, I am NOT convinced that something extra was a way of tapping some external "environmental energy source". We have already dismissed EVERY plausible external energy source that he could have used...even one's that were not yet available in the early 18th century"

    Do you realize your putting one impossibility up against another, but are chosing the greater impossibility?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I do believe that Bessler was experimenting with
    electrostatic(fluid in those days)just look carefully at the picture from Das Triumphirende
    Bessler's workshop,the disc,next to the compass at the botom of the picture is, or looks like comb, and on the right hand side of the picture the crossbar is also very interesting,on each small bar, there are (look's like)brushes.
    Most people discard this means,I stated before, that gravity requires intermarriage.
    If a man wants to have a child,you need a woman.
    And woman need a man to have a child.
    The deal is done,no mater what,you cannot change.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ Doug

    I have ALREADY stated MANY times exactly where I believe Bessler's wheels obtained their energy and the process involved although I have not provided the exact mechanics involved for this...yet. As I previously stated, the energy / mass outputted by ALL of his wheels came directly from a wheel's weights and from nothing external to the drum. The method of energy / mass extraction was also very simple. An rotating wheel's descending side weights would be losing enrgy / mass at a slightly greater rate than it was regained by the ascending side weights. My approach does not require me to accuse him of being a hoaxer or of somehow tapping some vague "environmental energy source".

    As for what I believe Bessler was referring to with his cryptic AP quote ("...lightly throw a heavy weight upward....") is concerned, I also revealed what Bessler was alluding to when I gave the example of my experience with the two foot rubber band when I was ten.

    IF you discovered some different principle when you were ten years old, then I'd certainly like to hear about it.


    @ Anon

    I'm not sure what you are sugggesting in your comment, but when I said that possible post early 18th century means of moving his wheels had been excluded, I was referring to such things as a wheel containing battery powered solenoids to shift their weights about. I don't see such a wheel being able to output 25 watts continuously for two months straight considering the volume of their drums and the known energy density of even today's advanced batteries.


    @ vincent

    You are advancing the hypothesis that Bessler's wheels were powered by electrostatic motors of some sort. Again, like the Leyden Jar solenoid approach, this method would have meant Bessler was a liar and his wheels clever fakes. Even assuming he used this approach, would Carl have described is as "so simple that he was surprised no one else had though of it"? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Tech...I'm not suggesting anything, I thought I was being quite clear. You find the Wheel tapping into an additional energy source an impossibility, but you are chosing an even greater impossibility.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @ Anonymous

    I don't consider extracting the energy / mass of a weight to be an "even greater impossibility". This fundamental process was suggested by Einstein in 1905 and has been successfully used to explain a variety of physical phenomenon. It is not an impossibility, but rather a FACT. It is also the ONLY plausible process that can rationalize how Bessler's wheels could run while continuously outputting tens of watts for months on end.

    Remember that his Merseburg wheel contained 16 lead weights with a total mass of 64 lbs. If you calculate the amount of energy that represents you will quickly see that it is truly enormous. Enough, in fact, to allow the wheel to output tens of watts for MILLIONS of years or to run freely for BILLIONS of years!

    So far, aside from the "energy / mass depletion of weights" approach, I have not read anything on this blog or on any other sites which I would consider as a plausible solution to the Bessler mystery. I keep hoping that something will pop up to convince me that I am wrong, but so far NOTHING!

    ReplyDelete
  57. So bessler used the process of nuclear reaction for energy.

    ReplyDelete
  58. There's that aire of desperation again!.. Of course you are wrong.It's quite obvious why perpetual motion is definitely possible and can be explained with a simple mathematical argument.
    If you really want it I can prove it logically.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I am not good in explaining thing's,i don't talk to much and i don't like writing(it's like sleeping pill for me)I admire you guys.
    I am advancing nothing,all of your theories could be spot on.Bud it has to proved itself.
    I have build electrostatic generator, yes it is nice ,and now? what to do whit it? The point i try to make here, is,that you have something to test on.
    Labyrinth of clues.
    Surprising Carl. I give you a Rye grain, and tell you, make a bread roll,do you now how?
    What if i show you,than you would say it's simple.
    No one heard noise from locked room.
    Bessler said that his wheel can turn with or without weights,empty or laden,if true,than it would make sense that the wheel was running without weights and like pussyfoot in the room.
    Why Carl didn't buy it.
    First,I think that Carl facing the wheel, did not realize the graveness,what he sees.It was to simple for twenty thousand pounds,at that time, there bin many other inventions, much more prettier ,lucent,complicated mechanics etc.
    At his age Carl was probably worried more about pussy than Orffyreus wheel.John wrote about his infidelity in his book.
    This is only my personal, simple opinion.
    I am still working on it E.G.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Then I doubt it's Bessler's wheel because he said a mathematician wouldn't find it. But okay Trevor I'm all ears.

    ReplyDelete
  61. No desperation Trevor,just attempt to try resolve this Bessler's bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Okay,..My self confidence is not because I'm filled with illusions of grandiose fame,which I have been accused of before.
    It's because I know exactly how the wheel works and that it does not contravene any laws in physics made by man.
    Very simply first,..When a heavy weight loses height and the potential energy lost is stored in a spring by virtue of it's velocity/mass enertia,the spring can give that same quantity of energy from potential back to mass/velocity,so nothing is lost.Okay remember this picture because it will help you visualise whole wheel process.
    Now if you can use just 25% of the weights downward displacement energy to maintain through the right configuration an oscilation that causes the weights on one side to be temporarily predominant(preponderant),the wheel will turn until those weights reach the bottom.Now comes the question!
    Will not those weights keel the wheel?Yes,..but not if you remember that it's part of an oscillation.This means that the displacement of the weights to the side has been stored in a spring mechanism which can now be given back out again.
    There you have it in a nutshell.Your problem now is what configuration to use that has virtually no friction.
    Remember,..friction is the enemy of oscillation.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Damn! I've achieved to make lots of working wheels in WM2D, but today I realized that I forgot to add damping to the springs... I've started to beleive the impossibility of making such wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Trevor, those springs would be as magical as Tg's levers if they lost nothing.
    Vincent, you've brought up a good point. He did say he had wheels that could run without weights. Didn't Wagner say the Draschwitz wheel, I think, was silent? And Bessler said it ran on a different "principle"? So the 54 day test could have been a return to a wheel without weights, which makes sense. It's easier to turn a balanced wheel with any energy source.

    ReplyDelete
  65. SPRINGS - they must be included in a working wheel, Bessler says so. So if yours have none, better add them in now. Maybe 'oscillation' is the one word that Bessler said would give the secret away.
    regards
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  66. Doug, are you not splitting hairs a bit.Springs are used in the balance wheels of clocks becauase they have virtually no loss.
    Friction is not a problem to the wheel,it is only a factor when you need a fast lengthy oscillation of a pendulum.
    The secret to an efficient use of a spring is to secure each end tightly.

    ReplyDelete
  67. A spring is actually a very sofficeticated device.As you must know it is composed of millions of molecular magnets that do not even touch each other.
    What more friction free device can you get than that!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Trevor, springs are good for storing and releasing energy, but they are like gravity, they are a conservative field for energy storage and release. They can't change the system. They have no energy before it's given to them. You wind the spring in tthe clock with a key. The spring stores your muscle energy. The gears release the energy over time.
    If your weights are storing their potential energy in the gravitational field into a spring, your weights got that potential energy from you lifting them up in the first place. When they fall and stretch or compress the springs, the springs are simply converting that gravitational potential energy in the weights that you gave them, to mechanical energy in the form of spring tension. There's no gain in energy, just conversions, and losses. Springs aren't 100% mechanically efficient, they heat up from tension. If you're thinking the weights are flung higher from the spring tension, that's getting into another topic about forces in closed systems.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ditto Doug,..You've just repeated what I just said. The springs are just used to store from kinetic to potentential.,that all they are used for,but they are efficient enough.Why are you so synical.Is it because there seems to be no headway with the wheel?

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'm not being cynical. I didn't repeat only what you said. You can't analyze a system and ignore friction, no matter how efficient the parts are. It's the main reason the dream of perpetual motion persists: basing a design on an ideal machine. Ideal machines can't exist. Bessler didn't have one.
    The reaction force from using springs is really the problem. When a weight stretches or compresses a spring, then the other end of the spring passes the force that weight has, through to the linkage or whatever the spring is secured to.
    If it is secured to the rim or a radial arm or the axle, those points "push back" against the spring. At the end of the day, or one rotation, the springs don't add any energy; they become another link for energy loss in the chain.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Doug is right. You have to consider the friction in springs. Do you know if someone measured the rotation rate of the Kassel wheel after 54 days? If there was a slow-down that would have been an undeniable sign of a hoax. 54 days with some major lifting and it turning itself... I really don't get it... If it was a hoax he must have used extremely powerful springs. What are we missing here?!So the options for possible solutions are:
    a) He was a fraud used some very powerful springs. Is it possible? I don't know.
    b) He did it for real. He used some kind of a new technology a renewable energy source may be?
    c) He did it for real. There was a mechanism behind the canvas. But for 300 years everyone has been trying to make the mechanism but it looks and science says it is impossible. On the other hand, in my opinion, Bessler's clues point a sort of mechanism.
    I am lost here :(

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ Doug

    NO! There were NO nuclear reactions, either fission or fusion, going on inside of Bessler's wheels! The energy / mass depletion I write of was the same that takes place in everyday life when, say, an apple's stem breaks and it falls to the ground. It is not some mysterious high tech process. It is just the natural way that objects behave when subjected to a gravity field.


    @ vincent

    When Bessler said his wheels worked "whether empty or laden" he meant that they would run whether they were performing external work or not. I think ALL of Bessler's OB PM gravity wheels used weights. His reference to other machines that did not use weights may have been a reference to the various ideas he illustrate in MT, most of which he would have realized were UNworkable if he actually tried to build them.


    Now, let's discuss this spring business in some detail.

    I would recommend that the serious Bessler mobilist STOP thinking of springs as energy "storage" devices. True, they are, but that is NOT the way Bessler was using them.

    ReplyDelete
  73. PART II:


    Bessler's cryptic remark in AP ("...lightly throw a heavy thing upward...") is a reference to using a spring to counter balance the weight of a heavy object so that it can be easily raised a certain distance by another smaller weight dropping a far shorter distance (remember my story of my discover with a two foot long rubber band at the age of 10). Bessler says that whoever can guess (or "speculate") what this principle is will SOON achieve PM! Was he just exaggerating? I don't think so.

    The problem with making a design like Leupold's lever wheel work is that one has to figure out a way to make its ascending side weighted levers (located on the right half of the wheel in his illustration) swing back toward their outermost orientations as they approach the zenith of the wheel. If this is not done, then the CoM of all of its 12 weights will swing right over to the wheel's ascending side and torque will turn negative as the wheel slows to a stop and then begins to "keel".

    Now, what would happen if the ascending side levers were each suspended on carefully tensioned springs so that they could be quickly raised with as little force as possible? Well, you might just find that their connections to other dropping weighted levers would cause them to rapidly rise as they approached the zenith and, in the process, would always keep the CoM of all of the weights on the wheel's descending side (which is the left side of the wheel in Leupold's illustration).

    Another clue that reinforces this approach is found in MT 18. There we see that each weighted lever is actually its own spring. As that wheel turns CW, the weights on its ascending side (left half of wheel in Bessler's drawing) become momentarily weightless. They literally float at the ends of the lever arm springs as then approach the zenith! Then, as a spring arm continues to rotate CW, the increase in tension flings the weightless mass at the end of the arm outward toward its rim stop.

    The bottom line: If you are NOT using SPRINGS in your wheel designs, then you might as well not even WASTE your time building anything! Sorry if I'm depressing some newbie or even veteran mobilists out there with this statement. Sometimes, however, the truth can be a bitter pill to swallow.

    From studying this matter I am convinced that it is NOT possible to build a WORKING PM gravity wheel UNLESS one uses designs that incorporate springs. It took Bessler years to realize this, but when he did, he finally found a way to make an OB wheel work while everybody else's attempts failed. Unlike them, Bessler, being a clockmaker, was an expert at the use of springs. Why? Well, in the early 18th century most clockmakers were still MAKING their own spring by hand! He probably knew as much or MORE about them than Hooke did!

    ReplyDelete
  74. We are talking at cross-purposes here.Friction is not an issue.All machines have major friction and they still output work.
    We are not talking about a frictionless wheel turning in a vacuum,that is really no good to anybody.
    This is a wheel that can do a job of work regardless of friction which is a negligable factor.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Tguyness, you're talking about mass increase or decrease from acceleration or deceleration. Since the weights are supposed to take a shorter path while ascending close to the axle, then they would necessarily have to go slower, and have less mass than weights going faster. The weights have to accelerate when they are supposed to descend closer to the rim, so they would have more mass relative to their slower brethren on the other side of the wheel, from their faster velocity.
    That's all true, but it doesn't mean they "lose" or "gain" REAL mass, not even a picogram fraction. That's just not going to happen, energy=mass or not. Objects falling and rising in gravity don't change at a quantum level.

    The problem is, when we try to FORCE the weights to take the shorter, slower path, they resist the change in direction; they want to continue on a 90 degree tangent to the axle. So , we not only have to force the weight's mass to take the shorter path, we have to overcome the inertia it has built up from its trip down the faster side. This is what bessler found out the hard way; it can't be done with gravity driven mechanics alone.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Doug you can make a weight change direction without using additional force or energy. Just change the pivot point. Then the weight applies greater energy to the slower path.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Where is the pivot point you're changing?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Heck anywhere. Just lasso a firehydrant as your traveling forward in a car and you'll see what I mean. And if there are obstacles in your way causing you to slow down, you'll also cause them to speed up. I'm not saying it's free energy.

    ReplyDelete
  79. If you swing them in towards the axle on the down swing you wont be retarding the wheels inertia. Use the free fall force...combine them with springs...

    ReplyDelete
  80. @ Doug

    The changes in energy / mass that I say took place in the weights in Bessler's wheels had nothing to do with acceleration or deceleration. They were produced solely by the changes in elevations of the weights in the Earth's gravity field as drum rotation took place.

    These changes were independent of the rotation rate of a wheel. They would be the same whether the wheel turned at 1 rpm or 50 rpm. These changes in energy / mass affected EVERY mass possessing subatomic particle with a lead weight.

    You were correct about one issue, though. As the rotation rate of a wheel increased so, too, would the CF affecting the ascending side weights. As the rotation rate increased, those ascending side weighted levers would swing out farther and thus have to rise higher before their weights could begin to "gravitate" toward the wheel's axle. The effect of this would be to cause the Com of a wheel's 8 active weights to swing closer to the point directly below the axle and thus to produce less torque to further accelerate the wheel. As torque decreased, a point would be reached where the torque just equaled the air and bearing drag that tended to retard drum rotation and at this point the drum would stop accelerating and just coast at a constant maximum terminal rotation rate.

    ReplyDelete
  81. The changes in mass were produced by the changes in elevation?
    You must be joking.
    Even if you aren't, which I know you aren't - you're Tguy - then as everybody knows, the elevations each weight had would equal out across the wheel, so there goes that theory.

    anon, if your pivot point is on the wheel, anywhere, then the extra force the weight is going to need to change direction is coming from the wheel, which produces negative torque on the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Doug wrote,
    "anon, if your pivot point is on the wheel, anywhere, then the extra force the weight is going to need to change direction is coming from the wheel, which produces negative torque on the wheel."

    No. Not when a weight accelerates past the wheels velocity.

    ReplyDelete
  83. If the weight pivots from its connection to the wheel, that whipping acceleration of the weight creates an equal, complementary deceleration of the wheel. That's the nature of force.
    If the weight could lasso a passing fire hydrant as a pivot...

    ReplyDelete
  84. @ Doug

    Yes, when a weight is lifted in a gravity field, its energy / mass content will increase and, on the contrary, when it drops while in contact with outside objects (such as the levers, cords, springs, and drum structures of Bessler's wheels) its energy / mass content will decrease. This has been an accepted FACT in physics since the beginning of the 20th century! This is NOT something I invented, but rather something I USE to rationalize how Bessler's wheels could have worked WITHOUT having to rely upon vague "environmental energy sources" as an explanation.

    Yes, I am well aware that the weights inside of Bessler's wheels rose and fell through the SAME distance. Those who have swallowed the "gravity is a conservative force" argument against the possibility of a OB PM gravity wheel being able to work and constantly output energy / mass ALWAYS ASSUME that ALL of the desending side weights LOSS of energy / mass MUST be used to supply the energy / mass GAINED by the ascending side weights.

    Ordinarily, for weights always located the same distance from a wheel's axle, their assumption is true. However, it is NOT true when the CoM of the weights is always maintained on the wheel's descending side. In that case the descending side weights will constantly lose MORE energy / mass than is gained by the ascending side weights DESPITE the fact that the weights on both sides of the wheel vertically rise and fall through the SAME distance. That slight net excess energy / mass lost by the descending side weights can then be used to accelerate ALL of the structures of the wheel and the structures of any devices attached to the wheel.

    YES! Bessler REALLY did have a WORKING PM gravity wheel and SOON so shall we!

    ReplyDelete
  85. So now the change in energy is back to distance from the axle, rather than elevation difference? Do you just change your argument now when I point out the hole in it?
    Everyone already knows the weights can't be forced to follow the "path", so i won't go back over that one.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I read somewhere, that mass is unchanging property,to increase mass by one percent,you have to reach fourteen percent speed of light,or about
    42million/ms.If true, or close to the true,than something is not right with your concept.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Doug wrote,
    "If the weight pivots from its connection to the wheel, that whipping acceleration of the weight creates an equal, complementary deceleration of the wheel. That's the nature of force."

    I write, Doug go back and read what I originally wrote. If you still don't get it send another post and I'll explain.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I'm afraid you're the one that doesn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Doug, hmmm how can we make this interesting?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Doug wrote:

    "So now the change in energy is back to distance from the axle, rather than elevation difference? Do you just change your argument now when I point out the hole in it?"

    No! The changes in energy / mass that the weights inside Bessler's wheels experienced were dependent upon the changes in elevation of the weights and NOT their distance from the axle.

    I used the example of a wheel with weights always located the same distance from the axle only because when such a wheel rotates, the descending side weights lose energy / mass at the EXACT same rate that the ascending side weights regain it. As a consequence, no extra energy / mass is left over to accelerate the wheel or drive external machinery.

    This, however, did NOT happen in Bessler's wheels because the average magnitude of the vertical dropping velocity of the descending side weights was a bit greater than the average magnitude of the vertical rising velocity of the ascending side weights. Because of this asymmetry in the rates of change of energy / mass of their ascending and descending side weights caused by the eccentricity of their motion with respect to the axle, the weights were able to constantly output energy / mass to accelerate the entire wheel or power outside machinery. With each complete rotation around the axle, each weight would be a fraction of a picogram LESS massive.

    So, my argument has not really changed and you have yet to poke any holes in it!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Techno,the best way to prove your theory is,
    that you build a wheel, or what ever it is.
    Nothing will move,with flirting fantasies.
    No offence.

    ReplyDelete
  92. A (somewhat belated) happy new year to all.

    Maybe you guy are interested in a little update. I also would like to say that I'm happy to see mr. Worton here, the inventor of the armature. Elsewhere I read that mr. Worton regrets that nobody seems to think there's much to Besslers signature (as a clue). Well, I for one think that he's right - the armature, after all, is partially based on it. And I definitely think he on to something with that. Reason for me to continue to tinker with it.

    So here at Chaos Manor I've been working with his armature. If anybody is interested (as I am not into collecting and hogging nuts) I'm willing to put it online, that is, if John would be good enough to post it here.

    As many of you know I always maintained that oscillation is a key part of Besslers mechanisms. Now that I have mastered some simulation software I've been testing several configurations of the armature, and -after finding some promising stuff- constructed a test model. I have found three interesting things:

    1). The armature, using springs, can be made to "snap" in and out of respectively closed and open position very quickly, with little effort.

    2). The armature, with the help of a parametric oscillator at strategic points, requires very little (shifting) weight (the M1 weights) to move a (M2) weight EQUAL or of higher weight.

    3). It can "make a heavy weight fly up easily".

    I am now constructing a further modified version of the armature with oscillators attached to it. There are two possibilities: a central oscillator (from the the axle) which is very powerful to slow; and four oscillators for each armature. From what I've seen so far, the latter is the most promising. Thank you mr. John Worton!

    ReplyDelete
  93. "powerful to slow" should read "powerful though slow". Sorry for the typos.

    ReplyDelete
  94. tg said:

    This, however, did NOT happen in Bessler's wheels because the average magnitude of the vertical dropping velocity of the descending side weights was a bit greater than the average magnitude of the vertical rising velocity of the ascending side weights.

    So now it's back to differences in acceleration!

    Whatever. The bottom line is what I posted earlier, the weight can't be forced, without counter force, from inside the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Doug wrote:

    "So now it's back to differences in acceleration!"

    and:

    "The bottom line is...the weight can't be forced, without counter force, from inside the wheel."


    If you reread my previous comment carefully, you will see that I an NOT talking about accelerations of the weights, but rather about their average vertical velocity components.

    In a working OB PM gravity wheel, there is always a difference between the magnitudes of the average rate at which descending side weights lose energy / mass and the average rate at which ascending side weights regain it. This difference is due to the difference in the magnitudes of the average rates of their vertical motions.

    I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your second quote above.

    The weighted levers within Bessler's wheels were in a state of equilibrium with respect to each other such that their weights' CoM was always located on an active wheel's descending side. When the drum rotated, that equilibrium would be perserved as the various weighted levers automatically shifted with respect to their rim stops.

    This equilibrium, however, was a somewhat delicate one. Bessler even complained that he had to keep an eye on those he allowed to handle a two directional wheel so that they would not give it too forceful of a shove which would then cause its internal mechanices to "go out of balance". If such a mishap occurred, Bessler would have to rebalance its internal mechanism again which would require accessing the inside of the drum through one of its inspection holes.

    ReplyDelete
  96. There is no difference in their average vertical velocity components.If you understood what you are trying to articulate, you'd realize that.

    You need to reread all of your own comments in this post.
    All of your bobbing and weaving explanations for a working OB wheel has confused your own mind.

    The weights can't be forced into the path you need without an equal and opposite force acting against the wheel. Levers can't force them, the levers have to push against something, and if the levers are attached to the wheel, then they have to push against the wheel. That's the simplest way I know how to say it.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Doug wrote:

    "There is no difference in their average vertical velocity components.If you understood what you are trying to articulate, you'd realize that."

    As JC might say, "You're wrong, wrong, WRONG!"

    I have used simulation software to verify that when weights follow a path that places their CoM onto the descending side of a rotating wheel there is a significant DIFFERENCE in the magnitudes of their vertical velocity components and the average descent rate is always greater in magnitude than the average ascent rate. I do not just "think" this is a REAL effect, I KNOW it is!

    Also, the weights that moved about inside of one of Bessler's wheels were not "forced" to do so. They naturally did so because they were coordinated with each other via the Connectedness Principle so as to maintain a particular equilibrium that always placed their CoM on an active wheel's descending side.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Your software is giving you what you tell it to give you. That's the nature of sims. Computers only do what they are told.
    If you try to build what your computer tells you to build based on the parameters you gave the computer, then your wheel will perform according to nature's parameters, not the program's. And you're left to wonder why it didn't work.
    If one doesn't include all of the parameters in the simulation, or has incorrect parameters, one will get misleading results.
    In the parlance of software, garbage in, garbage out.
    But I could be wrong,wrong, wrong.
    If you simulate a naturally impossible wheel, with magically shifting radii, you get differing velocities for the weights, and the wrong conclusion you came to: Bessler's wheel worked because the velocities were different.

    ReplyDelete
  99. @ Doug

    I am well aware of the problems associated with using simulation software and the extra checks that must be made to ensure that its results are valid and not due to some glitch.

    I have done many simulations in the past in which I monitored the vertical velocity component of a SINGLE weight as it orbited about the axle of a rotating carrier wheel. I could make the center of orbit of the weight coincide with the center of the wheel axle or I could locate the center of the weight's orbit at various other points on the wheel.

    I found that the magnitudes of the average rates of vertical ascent and descent of the orbiting weight were only equal when the center of the weight's orbit coincided with a vertical line passing through the wheel's axle. If the center of the weight's orbit was held stationary at ANY other location, then the magntudes of the average vertical ascent and descent velocities of the weight began to differ and the difference became greatest as the weight's center of orbit was moved directly horizontally away from the wheel's axle on either the ascending or descending side of the wheel.

    This is a REAL effect caused by the eccentricity of the weight's orbit and it DOES have an effect on the rates of energy / mass loss / gain by the weights that orbit the axle of a rotating OB PM gravity wheel.

    The CoM of the weights on the descending sides of Bessler's two directional wheels were not located directly horizontally away from the center of a wheel's axle, but, rather, about about an inch away from a vertical line passing through the axle and about four or five inches below a vertical line passing through the axle. Thus, the CoM of a sub wheel's weights made an angle of about 12.5° with a vertical line passing through the axle (given by taking the arc tangent of 1/4.5).

    This is obviously a somewhat shallow angle and a major reason for the low torque of Bessler's wheels. Could it be improved by increasing it toward 90°? Maybe, but that's a whole other bag of worms to contend with AFTER we find Bessler's original design for a "weak wheel".

    ReplyDelete
  100. Correction:

    The line in my last comment that reads:

    "...and about four or five inches below a vertical line passing through the axle."

    should read:

    "...and about four or five inches below a HORIZONTAL line passing through the axle."

    Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  101. If you simulate a naturally impossible wheel, with magically shifting radii, you get differing velocities for the weights.
    Garbage in, garbage out.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out

    ReplyDelete
  102. @ Doug

    My claim is that the motion of the weights inside Bessler's wheels was NOT "naturally impossible". That motion was the natural result of an array of very carefully counter balanced weighted levers whose CoM always "naturally" stayed to one side of the axle due to very carefully coordinated lever shifting during drum rotation.

    My simulations only used a single weight, but it was enough to show me that the principle would also work for a wheel containing eight weights.

    Of course, when one only has a single weight in a design, one is obliged to drive the carrier wheel with a motor so that the weight will follow an eccentric track around the wheel's axle.

    That, however, does not alter the fact that the ascending and descending side weights in a rotating OB PM gravity will change their energy / mass content at significantly DIFFERENT rates.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Your claim for the motion isn't any different from the eccentric path claims before it. Your misguided, and overcomplicated, attempts at explaining it are different, but they won't change the outcome of the same claim.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @ Doug

    The outcome is that an OB wheel WILL work and continuously output energy / mass IF some way can be found to keep the CoM of its weights on the wheel's descending side. I am 100% convinced that such a way can be found and that Bessler found it. However, I don't think it is quite so simple as today's mobilists might think after reading Carl's comments about it.

    The solution is out there and waiting for rediscovery. But, to find it one must do a tremendous amount of analysis of the Bessler literature, be able to do world class analytical thinking, and, most importantly, be BUILDING constantly and I don't mean every few months when the mood strikes, but several hours per day! However, like Bssler, I recommend taking off on sundays so you can allow your mind and body to recover.

    Also, make DAMN sure that you are on the "right track" because if you are not, then "all your industry will be in vain."

    ReplyDelete
  105. Your conviction is based on wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  106. And the FACT that it has been done at least SIX times already!!!

    ReplyDelete
  107. It hasn't been replicated by independent persons, so it isn't a fact. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Obviously, IF it HAD been replicated by "independent" persons, then we would not be trying to replicate it now! LOL!

    Considering the elaborate measures taken to exclude a hoax, I don't think replication by others is really necessary in this case to establish their genuine nature. The wheels were real, witnessed and tested by thousands, and personally internally inspected by a "qualified" witness of extreme credibility.

    That's good enough for me!

    ReplyDelete
  109. Right. It hasn't been replicated by an independent person.

    You don't know what the thousands witnessed. You don't know what the count witnessed. All you know is what Bessler *almost* says they witnessed. Which means you know nothing. And that's good enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  110. I trust the judgement of Count Carl and so did the various kings of Europe. His reputation for honesty was unsurpassed.

    IF Bessler had been a fraud, Carl would have been the first to denounce and expose him not only to protect his own sterling reputation, but also to prevent Bessler from perpetrating his hoax on anybody else.

    I do know about 90% of what they saw of the wheels externally (thanks to Bessler, Gould, and Collins) and, after much research of my own into the matter, about 90% of what Carl would have seen of the internal mechanics.

    No, I still do not have all of the details I would like to have, but I get bit closer with each passing day. I thank God that I finally got on the "right track"!

    ReplyDelete
  111. The elaborate measures taken to exclude a hoax doesn't prove it was a gravity driven wheel.

    Replication by independent sources is ALWAYS necessary for an invention.

    It didn't have to be a gravity driven wheel for count carl to to give it his endorsement. His only statement about it, that he could even make, was it was so simple a carpenter's boy could make it. That could mean any number of things.

    One thing it means to me is your approach with cords, springs and multi-armed levers is way off; a boy would never be able to put the maze of all that together without some help. And as I'm showing on the other post, it can't work anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I think that Carl described the inner mechanics of the wheel he saw as "so simple..." precisely because it ONLY used weighted levers, cords, and springs. Carl was well familiar with such things as scientific instruments (he collected them) and the mechanics of such things as clocks and other machinery. The total absence of any gears or pulleys inside of Bessler's wheels would have surprised him.

    Could a "carpenter's boy" be able to replicate the wheel after taking a quick look at it? Probably not, but he certainly might have been able to assemble one from scratch if he was provided with the proper shapes and dimensions of the parts that went into it.

    Sadly, Bessler never left those schematics for us. We shall have to derive out own...it WILL happen...eventually.

    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...