I've moved my half-built mechanisms onto a slightly larger MDF disc as they were protruding from the edge at one point and catching on the supporting frame. I have continued to use the same disc for some time and really it's a bit too small for my design. I find that getting relative sizes right can be a problem. I have the design on paper but there are often compromises to be made when the actual build begins. Sometimes parts that ideally work within certain parameters don't always obey my requirements! Just kidding, actually I did not anticipate just how much range of movement a certain part would be capable of until I built the mechanism, off the supporting structure. The result is that I need a bigger supporting structure, which is not a problem as I had one prepared for an earlier version.
Despite my fear of my wheels being judged as of inferior quality, I shall post pictures of both failed and/or successful current and future models, should I build any more.
I'm going to post some comments about my theory and perhaps some hints on the design. I know that as these appear some critics will dismiss them out of hand and others will argue logically against them, but I would like to suggest that until the complete picture or at least more of it becomes available, it might be thought better to refrain from at least completely dismissing them, because I have one or two surprises to post later on which might just convince otherwise.
JC
I look forward to your comments, John.
ReplyDeleteI have been looking at devices at the other end of the technology "spectrum" i.e. at certain very high-tech machines. I find that some of these are already in operation (after multi-million dollar research expenditure) but they are currently not being operated in a way that would allow them to deliver any net energy. That possibility doesn't seem to have occurred to their designers as yet, but it should be possible, and at reasonably high power, say several kilowatts.
I realise that all this is very different from what Bessler did, but the common thread is free, continously available energy from a purely mechanical device.
Good luck, John.
ReplyDeleteI can only assume that, like me, you finally realized that THE secret of the Offyrean PM IS contained, in symbolic form, in the two DT portraits, otherwise why your fixation with FIVE mechanism wheels (which you obviously believe are suggested by the pentagrams in the two portraits).
I, of course, applaud anyone who is trying to incorporate the various Bessler clues into his designs and, particularly, anybody who concentrates, in particular, on those TWO portraits which I like to think of as Bessler's real legacy to the world!
Of course, just trying to incorporate DT portrait symbolism into a design is not quite enough. One STILL has to have the CORRECT interpretations of those symbols. Now the question remains as to how accurate YOUR interpretations are. I am currently VERY confident in mine, but there are still some symbols that defy analysis despite my best efforts. There resolution is something I work on daily. IF your interpretations are better than mine, then I will know it and tell you so. IF NOT, then I will know that and also tell you so.
I can only mention at this time that if one does NOT believe that Bessler's wheels were OB type PM gravity wheels, then he is DEFINITELY on the "wrong track". Acceptance that they were, in fact, OB wheels is the most fundamental thing the serious Bessler inspired mobilist MUST do IF he ever hopes to get on the "right track" to a solution. The next thing he must do is accept that SPRINGS are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in order to make an OB PM gravity wheel work. So, make sure you are including springs in EVERY design you work on. Finally, don't think that you can make an OB wheel using "isolated perpetual motion structures". There have been THOUSANDS of designs that tried every conceiveable variation of this theme. It does NOT work! You must make the move toward the interconnectivity of the structures in your wheels. Those mysterious pentagrams are an IMPORTANT clue with regard to Bessler's "Connectedness Principle". If you ignore this clue, your designs are doomed to failure.
Thanks technoguy. I fear I will be going against your own opinion because there is no definitive requirement for springs in my design, so I guess my designs are doomed to failure.
ReplyDeleteJC
@ technoguy and JC,
ReplyDeleteHere is some wisdom born of concrete logical thinking if you will . Bessler more or less said that an empty wheel will turn longer than one with the wrong arrangement of weights in it . That is because it is balanced . Now Bessler's wheel would turn longer than either an empty wheel or one with the wrong arrangement of weights in it . So from this we conclude that Bessler's wheel was balanced so that it could turn easily AND it had the CORRECT arrangement of weights in it . This does not imply an OB wheel . OB wheels keel . It is very hard to imagine something that both turns easily and has weights in it . OB wheels in any form do not fit this minimal requirement .
If it didn't turn easily from an imbalance of weight, then what did it turn from, if it was balanced?
ReplyDeleteRight Doug,..The fact is ,it starts balanced,but as soon as it is primed it becomes unbalanced.
ReplyDeleteFrom then on the unbalanced primed turning wheel continues the cycle.
Then it would be an OB wheel, Trevor.
DeleteChris is saying OB didn't turn his wheels.
If they didn't turn from OB, then what turned them, Chris?
What happens if the principle has been posted on a forum, but then gets claimed by another, with a working device based on the same principle?
ReplyDeletedoes the original poster have rights to claim that others used his principle, leaving only the actual designs "by others" that are based on that principle being able to be claimed ?
One could at least register your design in a sealed envelope with a trusted attorney
ReplyDeleteon a certain date, proving that yours preceded any after that date.
Lol. You guys are thinking now . I wouldn't be too bold with saying things like..." the fact is " ... makes you sound like you " know " . If you don't have a turning wheel you don't know . I don't know . I'm not an expert but let's just say I was lucky to find what I found and then I was discerning enough to make some sense out of it . I grew tired of all this chatter yesterday . I will not share the information I have with everyone quite yet but be assured I am not just talking . I have already presented it to Rlortie , well respected and trusted in these circles ... and when John is ready I will share it with him also . Even then it may not be understood , I will be disappointed if it's not but let me say I understand it and that is an indication that eventually I or someone else will attempt to build it .
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, if it was not balanced,it would start turning on its own.The wheel had to be push to start and they turned easily.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo clear up what I said above : Bessler's wheel was not a classical concept of an OB wheel . That is : weights ascending on one side and magically being lifter on the other . Bessler said he had the true device , the mobile per se being the beginning of what he eventually perfected . I have no doubt whatsoever any more that Bessler was true . I have become fearless and proud of being involved in this search because I found the light at the end of the tunnel . I have a blog on here that will explain my position better if anyone cares to read it . cwonjohannbessler.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteMaybe the third time will be the charm.
DeleteIf the weights being out of balance isn't what turned the wheels, then what turned them?
I am already giving information which can be construed to answer your question . I didn't say the weights weren't out of balance . I said it wasn't an OB wheel . Why don't I just tell you everything I know without you asking me anything . I am already saying all I am willing to say . I am not ignoring you .
DeleteChris, you may have a future in politics.
DeleteChris Wilson wrote:
ReplyDelete"Bessler's wheel was not a classical concept of an OB wheel.
Well, in a way you are right because "classical" OB wheels never worked! LOL! However, I like to think of Bessler as having developed a "special" kind of OB wheel. Let me expand on this a bit.
Bessler's 1st and 2nd one-directional wheels WERE obviously OB because they experienced a constant net torque and would accelerate to some maximum terminal rotation rate as soon as they were untied from their tethers. In fact, once they had achieved their maximum angular momentum, they required considerable effort to slow them to a stop again if someone tried doing so by grabbing their axles.
Bessler's 3rd and 4th TWO-directional wheels were not INITIALLY OB because they required a gentle push to get them started and, after a fraction of a complete rotation, then BECAME OB and would produce a NET torque that would accelerate their drums or perform outside work.
How could this be possible one might wonder?
Simple. The drum of his two-directional wheel actually contained TWO one-directional "sub wheels" EACH of which was OB. BUT these two one-directional wheels were mounted on their common axle in OPPOSITION to each other and that configuration would then place the COMPOSITE CoM of their 16 active weights DIRECTLY under the drum's axle at the so-called "punctum quietus". Thus, when left undisturbed, a two-directional wheel would always remain stationary.
A gentle push, however, in either direction would then disturb the delicate counter balancing of a two-directional wheel's two counter poised internal sub wheels. After a complete drum rotation, whatever sub wheel was forced to undergo retrograde rotation would, via a system of gravity actuated latches, have its 8 active weights locked up securely against their rim stops. This then returned the CoM of those weights to the center of the axle where they could no longer contribute torque in order to counter the opposing torque of the remaining sub wheel's 8 weights whose CoM was then OB and would continue to accelerate the drum and its included other inactivated sub wheel.
There is nothing mysterious as to what was happening with Bessler's two-directional wheels. They only represented a novel application of the mechanics which he used in his earlier one directional OB wheels. Bessler made this modification in order to counter the claims of critics that his wheels used spring wound clockwork mechanisms that could only rotate a wheel in ONE direction much as a clock's movement will only turn its hands in one direction which, of course, is CW. It is somewhat more difficult to construct a two-directional wheel as compared to a one-directional one, but the main advantage of doing this, obviously, is that it can confuse the hell out of anyone trying to quess how his wheels worked. Even today, sadly, I STILL see this issue confusing mobilists and keeping them from getting on the "right track" to a REAL solution.
Again, I caution the serious Bessler inspired mobilist to hold firmly to the concept that Bessler's wheels were basically OB and that this was their ONLY source of driving torque. If one departs from this belief, he will be not be able to get and stay on the "right track". And, if one is NOT on the "right track", then he is either on the "wrong track" or on "no track" and his chances of EVER achieving success dwindle right down to a big, fat ZERO!
Methinks you like to hear yourself talk . Have you built it yet ? You talk as if you have all the answers . You seem to think that nobody but you could possibly have maybe a simpler explanation based on something that actually exists in the literature .
ReplyDeleteChris, please, please, please, you talk as if you had a working wheel runing, a real wheel. Please build yours and then come and say I DID IT, I hope your design works in the real work, but what if not?.....you have said too much. Please let us enjoy the words of JC.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right. I think I will do that . I think it will work in the real world because it is based on a real principle ... the principle of "excess weight" ...and not "overbalance" which is not a real principle .
DeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteYou will eventually get used to 'technoguy'. He can write tomes when he thinks it is appropriate. He also knows how to kill a conversation as well.
i do not have a running wheel , correct but i am not saying that Bessler's wheel was definitely this or that ... I am merely saying what it was not,which is an overbalanced wheel ... although i will not show the basis for my opinion i did not dream it all up on a whim ... it came to me gradually and just happens to be completed recently . BTW... I know a bullshitter when I hear one... I used to be the biggest bullshitter of all on these pages , even bullshitting MYSELF ... but this I warn is not Bullshit .
ReplyDeleteI think you should go wash your mouth out with soap!
ReplyDeleteI think you should try to wash my mouth out with soap .
DeleteActually, if you wash your mouth out with soap it can be cleaner than using toothpaste! Just won't taste as good.
DeleteNext, Please don't argue!
Chris Wilson wrote:
ReplyDelete"Methinks you like to hear yourself talk. Have you built it yet? You talk as if you have all the answers."
Actually, I much prefer to model my Bessler wheel prototypes than post on the internet, but it really bothers me to no end to see the sheer amount of effort going into solving this mystery ALL of which will, IF that effort remains misdirected, be COMPLETELY wasted. We've had 300 YEARS of such wasted effort. It's time for some REAL progress to finally be made. IMO, the Bessler mystery should have been solved BEFORE the end of the 18th century!
No, I have not constructed a physical prototype yet. In fact, I'm starting to realize that that is NOT the role I am meant to play in this ongoing drama. My role is to study and interpret the various clues (and not just the few anyone can find on the internet!), computer model potential designs until my fingers fall off and then to pass the final WORKING design on to others to construct who will have craftsmanship skills and equipment superior to my own. I don't claim to have discovered anything. Anything I come up with I will credit COMPLETELY to Johann Bessler who originally invented it. If it was not for his monumental effort NONE of us would be here now and this very site would NOT exist!
Do I have all of the answers? I certainly wish that I did so that I could finally wrap up this quest and get onto other things that also interest me. However, everyone here can rest assured that I am always VERY careful about anything I might reveal on this or other sites. I don't say anything unless I am 100% certain of its validity and, in fact, working with the concept myself on a DAILY basis. If I am uncertain about something, I will admit it as I did about my previous opinion of JC's desire to use Bessler wheel technology to provide on site home electrical power. Upon reevaluation, I found his prediction to look more possible and I admitted that.
I fully expect to be ridiculed from time to time in my efforts to get as many mobilists on the "right track" as possible. Change is one of the hardest things in life to do. I know this from the DECADES that I spent on the "wrong track" and I THANK GOD that I finally STUMBLED upon the "right track" approach. Those who are locked into their current "wrong track" approaches will have great difficulty in following my advice. That is to be expected. However, it is my hope that the occasional newbie mobilist who reads my comments here will give them some VERY serious consideration. Better yet, he might want to go back over my previous comments on this blog and then copy and paste the portions of them that deal with the Bessler wheel's inner mechanics into a folder so he can review them periodically. I would advise him to keep the concepts that I've presented in mind as he reads his way through the Bessler literature that JC has kindly made available to us. He will find that this will GREATLY enhance his understanding of the texts.
You insist that you are on the right track , but who might I ask is leading you ? I can see that you admire John Collins and so do I but for different reasons . You seem to be more confident in his ideas than HE himself is . That is not a good sign . You say plenty that is not based in fact . You are a trip and you make me laugh . All this hocus pocus that is being cooked up won't amount to a hill of beans and you know it . Bessler was a straightforward person except for his play on words . You have misinterpreted this to mean a lot more than it actually does . You are the blind attempting to lead the blind . You should not be listened to seriously . Listen to Bessler ...he said a'plenty . I'm really grown tired of arguing . No working wheel , no authority ... that's the rule . You guys want to glorify people and post nonsense , forever . I get it ...you don't actually care to solve the puzzle in your lifetime .
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a team effort,not a competition!
ReplyDeleteI think that if there is some solution so it has already been invented again but rejected because of bad mechanical solution.
ReplyDeleteI can tell we're getting closer to the anniversary!
ReplyDelete