There was a comment on here and I've had some emails asking me why my wheel is taking so long. People have said that it sounded very complex - maybe too complex to be similar to Bessler's wheel. So with only 21 days left 'til the 300th anniversary I'm sharing some of the details of its build although I doubt you will find it very illuminating - it's not meant to be - yet!
I think I shall finish it in time but I'm not quite there yet. I am committed to being away for a couple of weeks at the beginning of June so I may save the result 'til I return - or I may not - it probably depends on whether it works or not! I'm disappointed to be away on the very day we should be remembering Bessler's first exhibition but it can't be helped. Families make arrangements without considering the possibility that they might clash with an important date in my Bessler calendar!
The backplate on which it's all mounted is three feet wide. There are five mechanisms for reasons I understand but which are not immediately obvious at first sight. Each mechanism has ten parts plus two weights, so in total the whole wheel has 60 parts, plus the axle. I wish it had eleven parts per mechanism then it would total 55!
The axle runs all the way through the wheel - for those who have suggested that it didn't. The mechanisms employ the 'kiiking' principle and the wheel is designed to turn in one direction only.
There are no springs employed in my version although I could find a use for them if required, but the scissor linkage otherwise known as "stork's bill", or" lazy tongs" is present.
The method of working is readily apparent to a casual observer however longer study would be necessary to appreciate the finer points of detail without which it would fail. If it works, the wheel will begin to spin spontaneously as soon as any brake mechanism that might be applied is released.
The main reason why it has taken so long is that although I had the basic principle, there were some parts of the mechanism whose precise design arrangement was open to interpretation so I had to test each configuration to determine which worked the best. I have now got the mechanism arrangement I think works best so all I have to do is complete all five and test the wheel.
I'm convinced that even if it doesn't work the principle is sound and will lead to someone succeeding in making a working wheel. Watch this space.
JC
It's interesting that you incorporate the "stork's bill" mechanism. All Bessler enthusiasts will know what you mean, from Maschinen Tractate, but just to be pedantic, this should really be called a "lazy tongs" mechanism. In the academic world the stork's bill mechanism is a bit different, see http://kmoddl.library.cornell.edu/model.php?m=281.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right Arktos. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've made a correction.
ReplyDeleteJC
Would it help to prove a wheel is a genuine bessler wheel by employing storks gills in a wheel ?
ReplyDelete- Ealadha
Scissor linkage is more contemporary. On the infamous wiki:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkage_(mechanical)
Linkages are compound levers with the parts given different names; cranks, pivots, couplers and frames.
Look how complicated a piano key lever is!:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Broadwood_grand_square_action.svg
Thanks Doug, corrections added. Yes and you should see the linkages in an 18th century organ such as Bessler built.
ReplyDeleteEaladha, I don't think the presence of stork's bills on their own would necessarily prove the wheel was a genuine Bessler wheel. I'm sure when people see my design they will recognise where it came from among Bessler's works.
JC
Very, very interesting, John. Can't wait to hear more. And, despite the effort required it does sound "simple". Maybe Bessler didn't count the weights as separate parts since they are the "essential constituent parts". But he may have counted the pivots of each mechanism? That gives a total of 55.
ReplyDeleteHello
ReplyDeleteI work on a wheel design with "lazy tong" scissors in French as in lift tables or pods.
Graphically in Autocad drawing software it works with eight mechanisms of scissors and five compounds against weight, more weight orbital.
I have reproduced the various phases of the rotation to take stock of the resulting pairs.
As everyone says it still works on paper.
I modeled in 3D with Solidworks for a simulation.
I struggled to set the simulation module to the point that I gave up.
I turn to a physical building but will be longer.
Good luck to you john.
J. BONIFACE
I sympathise with your simulation struggles.
DeleteIf your model has motion only in a single plane, or in a series of parallel planes, you could model it using a simple 2D program like silux, or Working Model 2D. Either of these programs will import your Autocad drawing (as a .dxf file).
I'm starting to move (slowly!) up the learning curve for 3D modelling myself (so far: Solidworks, Ansys and even Blender).
Justsomeone asks: John, do you know what is SPECIAL about the scissors jacks?
ReplyDeleteAs Bessler mentions in the note to MT 41:
ReplyDelete"I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork’s bills."
I don't for a second believe that there were any "stork's bills", "scissor jacks", or "lazy tongs" inside of Bessler's wheels. But, he does seem to show a marked interest in them especially since he includes one on the "toys page" of MT.
Their appearance on the "toys page", I am convinced, was not because they were used in his wheels-that would have been giving TOO much away!-but, rather, because of the PRINCIPLE they demonstrate which is that each of the scissors is lifted by the one beneath it which, in turn, is lifted by the one beneath it, which in turn, etc., etc. This principle WAS used in his PM wheels because each ascending side weight was lifted by the one following it which, in turn was lifted by the one following it, etc. It's also VERY interesting that the scissor jack shown on the "toys page" contains exactly 8 scissors and there were 8 weighted levers in each of the sub wheels of one of his two-directional wheels! Coincidence? I don't think so!
Well, I await the revelation of your latest wheel, John, whether it is a "runner" or not. So far, it sounds like a simple collection of 5 isolated, gravity activated, two weight "perpetual motion structures". I've seen MANY designs like these in my time and none ever worked. Hopefully, you've found a new twist on this old design that will make a difference. I'll be ready to model as soon as the design is available.
Justsomeone, I believe I know what Bessler meant, and I think he was referring to how they are used that makes them special.
ReplyDeleteJC
In the mean time, some people here might be interested in seeing a previous
ReplyDeletebuild of yours, posted to youtube Jul 21, 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deA6KbNZft0
Thanks Bill (I think!) That looks really crude doesn't it, and it has no chance of working, although it does have small connection with what I'm doing now.
ReplyDeleteJC
Was the wheel shown publicly in june 1712 the first type invented ?
ReplyDelete- Ealadha
Yes it was Bessler's first exhibition of his first wheel and it happened at Gera, Germany.
ReplyDeleteBut was it the first type of wheel invented ! There were cross-beams on the first wheel , so were there cross-beams on that wheel shown at Gera , was there working experimental wheels before that which could have been different . Do you know ?
Delete- Ealadha
I think the bi directional wheels were invented first in 1711 and not shown to the public and then when the uni directional wheel was invented it was shown on the 6th of june 1712 .
Delete- Ealadha
@ JC
ReplyDeleteIt's not really that crude. At least the weights shift smoothly. Did you ever manage to have ALL five mechanisms constructed for an attempt at a complete rotation? Partial models are quick to construct, but are only of limited value in assessing the full potential of a design.
Speaking of the Gera wheel, I've always wished we had more accurate data on Bessler's first two one-directional wheels which were the Gera and Draschwitz wheels. For example, here's a quote that caught my attention years ago. It's in a letter written to Leibniz on January 19th, 1714 by a person (Teuber) who examined the Draschwitz wheel:
"It is covered by thin wooden planks in order to hide the internal mechanism. The axle is also wooden, and extends one foot beyond the wheel. It has three teeth which are for moving three wooden stamps similar to those used in pounding mills. The stamps are quite heavy and are lifted and dropped continuously."
Note that it only has 3 pegs on its axle for lifting and dropping 3 stamps rather than the 8 pegs found on the Merseburg wheel axle for lifting and then dropping 4 stamps. This suggests to me that Bessler's first two wheels may only have used either 6 or even 3 (!) weighted levers to achieve their motion rather than the 8 employed in the Merseburg and Weissenstein wheels.
The next thing I often wonder about is HOW did Bessler reveal the secret of his wheels to Count Karl during the time interval between the destruction of the Merseburg wheel and the construction of the Weissenstein wheel in order to induce the count into funding the construction of the latter??? Obviously, Bessler must have shown Karl a smaller, tabletop sized prototype on which he originally discovered the working design when he was at the "House of Ricters". Since I doubt that Karl would have visited Bessler, that means Bessler must have PERSONALLY carried this model wheel over to the count for inspection...AFTER, of course, collecting his 4,000 thalers and the count's "word of honor" not to reveal or use the secret (I can't even begin to imagine the count signing an outrageously paranoid document similar to the one Bessler's maid was required to sign!).
That model wheel could actually have had as few as only 3 weighted levers! Of course, if it was a yard in diameter then I guess a clockmaker would have had the skill necessary to install 8 or more weighted levers into it. IF I am successful in finding the design used on Bessler's 8 weighted lever wheels, my next effort may be to see if I can make it work with only 6 or even 3 weighted levers. It would be nice if that could be done because it would make the mechanism as easy as possible to understand and be used by inventors as they try to improve its power output.
Some further thoughts occurred to me about the 3 pegs used on the Draschwitz wheel's axle to operate the 3 wooden stamps. This wheel may have HAD to have used 3 pegs EVEN IF it contained 8 weighted levers!
ReplyDeleteThe reason is because Bessler's first two one-directional wheels probably had, even when operating "under load", much higher rotation rates than his later two-directional wheels.
Assuming that the Draschwitz wheel ran, when operating the 3 stamp mill, at 60 rpm, then that would be equivalent to 1 axle rotating per SECOND. Imagine that, on a cross sectional view of the axle rotating CCW, a peg engages the hole in a stamp when the peg is at 4:30 on the axle. The peg then lifts the stamp and releases it when the peg is a 1:30; that is, the peg lifts the stamp through a 90 degree interval of axle rotation. This maximizes the drop distance and the volume of noise produced.
IF Bessler had placed the pegs on the Draschwitz wheel's axle in OPPOSED pairs as are seen on the Merseburg wheel, then, just as a peg reached 1:30 and released a stamp, the opposed peg would be at the axle's 7:30 position and, exactly 0.25 seconds later, that peg would be at the 4:30 position and ready to lift the stamp IF that stamp was ALREADY down, had dissipated its temporarily gained energy / mass to produce its noise, and was ready to be lifted again.
IF, however, the stamp was STILL in the process of falling (I have not done the calculations yet to determine the full amount of time required for a probable drop distance), then it would be striking the opposite peg just as it passed the 4:30 position of the axle and ALL of the energy / mass added to the stamp during its initial lift would be suddenly returned right back to the axle again! That sudden feedback through the opposite peg might eventually shear if off of the axle if peg was made from wood. Even if the peg was metal, the delayed impact with the stamp hole would provide the axle with a sudden "spike" of counter torque which would have greatly slowed the wheel because of the extra power it would then have to deliver to overcome this increased counter torque.
Bessler probably initially experimented with using opposing axle pegs on his first two high rotational speed one-directional wheels in order to operate stamping mills, but quickly discovered that using SOLID wooden stamps would shear the extra opposed pegs off of the axles if they were made of wood. Using less massive, hollow stamps was a solution for perserving the wooden pegs, but that would be quickly noticed by examiners of the wheels and would emphasize their low power outputs. Metal pegs also have their problems. They could certainly withstand constant impacts with the slotted holes in the front surfaces of the stamps, but, over time, they would "chew up" the wooden stamps, especially hollow ones with thin walls. (However, this problem can be solved by placing lubricated metal sleeves into the stamp holes to protect the wood there.) There is, though, some suggestion in the Wagner "Critiques" that Bessler DID use hollow stamps on his first to "pre-Merseburg" wheels so he probably only used solid stamps on the Merseburg and Weissenstein wheels with their greater power output and lower rotation rates.
In any event, I am now steering away from the idea that an OB PM gravity wheel can be made to run with just 3 weighted levers. However, I still think that 6 weighted levers was possible for the first two one-directional wheels Bessler built. Again, this will all have to be determined once we have a WORKING 8 weighted lever design.
On topic and for the record: The stork's bill figures signify 'segmented acceleration' of a thing and, anywhere HANDLES are to be seen, this means 'hereat force is to be (or was) applied' to a thing, usually by gravity.
ReplyDeleteNow, OFF topic and harkening back to the previous post of our own distinguished editor/author's . . .
"I wish everyone would accept Bessler's statement that the weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’. Then we could go about trying to explain why that can be so. I have tried and will continue to try to find the solution but sometimes I feel as if I'm banging my head against a wall of taught science. No-one thinks for themselves any more but takes everything they are told for granted - parrot fashion. I'm not saying that people don't understand what they have learned but sometimes it is easier to assume that that is all there is to the facts; there are no other factors to be considered, when perhaps a little lateral thinking might help us to understand how to solve the problem."
As to the first sentence, SO DO I! Oh how I do.
". . . the essential constituent parts."
Yes. They were, and are nearly indeed, in confluence with gravity's inexorable, unrelenting attraction.
J.C. rightly opines to us ". . . but sometimes I feel as if I'm banging my head against a wall of taught science."
Anyone heavily into this search, for some period, should as well, and why not?
That wall he describes is one rock-solid, and is often put-forth with a swaggering air of nauseating self righteousness, scold even.
One recent example as found on-line would be
'No machine ever made, nor any natural process, has ever extracted any energy from "gravity".'
and this little spate was adorned ALL IN RED!
This sentence of asserted, absolute supposed fact, comes to the reader accompanied by no visible qualifying whatever.
It is an 'absolute statement'! Pat! End-of-story!
Actually, it is a testament of FAITH in the existence of the utterly unprovable, as based upon accepted pseudo-law, not dissimilar in key ways to our own belief that the Orffyrean creation may be transmutable from thought only, into operative reality, once again.
It's maker is a now retired but active physicist/professor/author having an arm-length list of credentials that would impress anyone still with wits. (I'm impressed!)
(cont. next)
I think you could get a wheel to work with 2 mechanisms , i think JB said so somewhere , that if you put 2 mehanisms on it rotates slowly , that would have been an early type that was never shown to the public .
ReplyDelete- Ealadha
TG (I hope it's ok to use the initials) I did make the whole five mechanisms but the reaction times were way too slow to be of any use, even if the movement had been sufficient.
ReplyDeleteYou make excellent comments and I am certain the Bessler must have had a portable wheel with him all his life, and a dismantled on was found after his death which disappeared , unsurprisingly.
The Gera wheel was four and a half feet wide, four inches thick and turned at 50 RPM. You have explained clearly why it had only three pegs and I agree completely. More pegs would have compromised the speed of the wheel and the demonstration.
James, thank you for your supporting voice! I have been to the website of the retired professor you referred to and although I had not been back there for some years it is clear that with advancing age he has become even more set in his narrow-minded myopic view point. His whole stance is pompous, privileged and insulting, and it reeks of that patronising attitude so prevalent in teachers. They have been to university and been given their professorships and now they know it all and their words are like gold dust - they think.
JC
Talking about gold dust.. some people don't even recognize gold when they see it. Just the other day I was reading some interesting information about the history of space flight / rocket science in the US. At a certain point the New York Times posted a story that Goddard (the famous rocket scientist) had to be an idiot, because everybody "knew" that his rockets couldn't work in the vacuum of space, thus making the device completely useless.
DeleteThe "experts" reasoned that in the vacuum of space the rocket would have "nothing to push against" and therefore would not work.
Immediately after WWII allied scientists confiscated as much V2 equipment, materials and drawings as they could, and brought the German scientists to the US in operation paperclip.
When they asked the Germans how their liquid fueled V2 rocket motors worked, they said "ask Goddard for a detailed explanation"... of course Goddard died later in 1945 but the story does show how deluded these all-knowing pompous "experts" can be. And that's just one of many examples.
Thanks Andre. There are many many other examples as well and I'm sure there must be a website listing them somewhere?
DeleteJC
Absolutely, here are some sites about fallacies and blunders, just for fun:
Deletehttp://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon.html
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html
If I remember correctly, there were reports about some strange noise/sound coming from the wheel. Are there any information regarding the sound? Do you have any theories?
ReplyDeleteThere are different descriptions connected with the different wheel, yellowson. The early ones were described as making scratching noises which I take to mean sliding or scraping noises. The later ones were accompanied by the sound of about eight weights landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned.
ReplyDeleteJC
Thanks JC. So the early wheels didn't have the sound of falling weights? That's strange.
DeleteThanks for the links Andre. I found this comment at http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/ff_causation/all/1:
ReplyDelete"The problem with assumptions is that causes are a strange kind of knowledge. This was first pointed out by David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Hume realized that, although people talk about causes as if they are real facts—tangible things that can be discovered—they’re actually not at all factual. Instead, Hume said, every cause is just a slippery story, a catchy conjecture, a “lively conception produced by habit.” When an apple falls from a tree, the cause is obvious: gravity. Hume’s skeptical insight was that we don’t see gravity—we see only an object tugged toward the earth. We look at X and then at Y, and invent a story about what happened in between. We can measure facts, but a cause is not a fact—it’s a fiction that helps us make sense of facts.
The truth is, our stories about causation are shadowed by all sorts of mental shortcuts. Most of the time, these shortcuts work well enough. They allow us to hit fastballs, discover the law of gravity, and design wondrous technologies. However, when it comes to reasoning about complex systems—say, the human body—these shortcuts go from being slickly efficient to outright misleading."
JC
(Cont. from above)
ReplyDeleteMost interestingly, a portion of this site he runs is dedicated to the 'folly' that any searching-after a perpetuum mobile would be, and is used as A HOOK upon which professing might be hung.
Ostensibly it is . . . but this naughty inquiring mind suspects more, motive-wise.
It is peppered throughout with jabs, crabs, innuendos of futility as well as imputations of INSANITY* even, for such seekers-after the 'damned pursuit'.
Charming!
This assemblage-peculiar features a good sized section addressing our own favorite, the life's work of Herr Bessler/Orffyreus, and it IS 'a Dusy'!
Throughout, this spectacle in tastelessness lacks attributions for informational sources. Surely, a bad sign ab initio?
And, examples standing in support PRO the Besserian Wheel proposition are almost uniformly omitted; whereas those holding CON, are there fulsomely. Another bad sign.
Although I've not researched this rhetorical creature line-by-line, my best guess presently is that items lifted directly from PM-AAMS? well might be there for any easy finding.
Such a tawdry exercise in excess and contempt, all masqueraded up as some thing educative (it IS that but only in-part, it's ALL THE REST that's the problem), I will not here identify, nor will I it's author, but rather will leave up to readers here to do any finding as might be done.
("The Psychology of Perpetual Motion Seekers")*
And to close, J.C. wisely advises ". . . but sometimes it is easier to assume that that is all there is to the facts; there are no other factors to be considered, when perhaps a little lateral thinking might help us to understand how to solve the problem."
A little lateral thinking.
Precisely.
Now, on-goes my "Criswell Predicts" hat.
No. 1 - When gravitational reality has dawned finally, and the main-stream science gorilla dust has all settled, it will be found that Nature Herself provides well and plentifully for accessing Her bounding fount of costless energy.
No. 2 - The Mystical Temple of Belief that is too much of the physics of our present-day, will be CHASTENED by correction - accrued arrogance being turned by this into a most justified, mew humility, presently foreign to them.
James (Primemignonite)
PS As a fine, needed ANTIDOTE to the belief-based, main-stream science nonsense, as we all must endure to our pain severally and individually, I recommend a reviewing THIS chap's excellent web site: http://www.cosmicveil.com/ The articles at the right on his pages appeal to logic and the heart, and are not mystical. They are bereft utterly of the blatherous/rhetorical, that our physicist of above features plentifully throughout his.
Glad to see the second part arrived OK, James.
ReplyDeleteJC
PART I:
ReplyDeleteI find that retired physics professor's statement:
"No machine ever made, nor any natural process, has ever extracted any energy from "gravity."
to be ACCURATE because gravity contains NO energy / mass to be extracted! How can one extract energy / mass from a MASSLESS field??? However, when it comes to Bessler's wheels it is ALSO accurate to say that gravity DID help to extract energy / mass from the descending side weights at a greater rate than was consumed by the ascending side weights. What was leftover during this continuous transfer of energy / mass within a rotating wheel could then be used accelerate the wheel and power attached outside machinery.
Ealadha wrote:
"I think you could get a wheel to work with 2 mechanisms , i think JB said so somewhere , that if you put 2 mehanisms on it rotates slowly , that would have been an early type that was never shown to the public ."
Does anyone have the quote for this?
JC wrote:
"The Gera wheel was four and a half feet wide, four inches thick and turned at 50 RPM."
Hmmm...I remember reading estimates of the Gera wheel rotation rate as high as 100 rpm!
Anyway fellow squirrels, I've done some quick calculations with regard to the pegs and stamps on the Draschwitz wheel. I came to the conclusion that the most probably drop distance for the 3 stamps would have been 8 inches. It would take a stamp, whether hollow or solid, about 0.2036 seconds to drop this distance.
This means that the opposed axle peg at the 7:30 of a CCW rotating axle would need to rotate around the axle through 90 degrees in a time interval GREATER than 0.2036 seconds in order to arrive at the lifting hole in the stamp AFTER the stamp had already fully dropped, impacted the top of stamping mill's sound chamber, and thereby converted all of its previously gained energy / mass into sound. If the axle rotated through 90 degrees in exactly 0.2036 seconds, then it would have completed a full 360 degree rotation in 0.8143 seconds. This is equivalent to a rotation rate of 73.6843 rpm's.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteSo in order for the opposed axle pegs to arrive at the stamp holes AFTER the stamps had already fallen and were stationary so that the pegs would not be impacted by a still dropping stamp, the Draschwitz's wheel's axle could NOT have rotated any faster than 73.6843 rpm's while operating the stamping mill attached to it. I HIGHLY suspect that, considering that the wheel used hollow stamps as suggested by Wagner, this wheel's axle speed would eventually climb well ABOVE 73.6843 rpm's while operating the stamping mill and collisions between opposite pegs and stamps became inevitable whenever a wheel was started from a standstill while running the stamping mill. The solution, as Bessler found and which was mentioned in the letter to Leibniz, was to remove all of the opposed pegs and just run the wheel with the 3 remaining pegs on its axle with each one operating its own stamp.
I also have a rough estimate of the power output of the Draschwitz wheel. It is derived by comparing the it to the Merseburg wheel.
In a previous comment, I estimated the average power output of the Merseburg wheel to be about 21 watts (I say "average" because it's obvious that Bessler's wheels could vary their power output to match the loads attached to them. They would have their maximum power output when just starting to rotate and their minimum power output at their maximum terminal rotation rates.). My calculations show that power output is directly proportional to the mass of the weights used AND the lengths of the levers to which the weights are attached.
Since the Draschwitz wheel was 9.3 feet in diameter and the Merseburg wheel 12 feet in diameter, one would expect the levers inside of the Draschwitz wheel to be 9.3 ft / 12 ft times the length of the Merseburg wheel levers. This ratio lets us adjust the average power of the Draschwitz wheel compared to the Merseburg wheel assuming that the Draschwitz wheel contained the same mass weights as the Merseburg wheel. However, knowing Bessler's constant efforts to improve the power output of his wheels, the Draschwitz weights were probably only about 1/2 as massive as those of the Merseburg wheel or 2.0 lbs as compared to 4.0 pounds.
It is now an easy matter to determine the average power output of the Draschwitz wheel:
Average Power Draschwitz = Average Power Merseburg x (9.3/12) x (2.0/4.0)
Average Power Draschwitz = 21 watts x 0.775 x 0.5
Average Power Draschwitz = 8.138 watts
We see from this that the Draschwitz wheel probably had an average power output that was only 1/3 of the 25 watt average power output of the Weissenstein wheel.
No wonder Bessler had to use HOLLOW stamps with his Draschwitz wheel!
Guys,..Has anybody here checked out if this guy is genuine.This site;Free energy gravity wheel video.
ReplyDeleteIf it is as good as it looks why has it not been exploited and why are we wasting our time with the Bessler wheel?,this one seems much more powerful!
All them free energy videos on the internet are fake , the only real free energy machine is the bessler wheel .
DeleteFree energy gravity wheel video is a site !
DeleteWhat guy are you talking about Trevor?
ReplyDeleteJC
Sorry John,.. I was referring to a site on the net under the name of Free energy gravity wheel.It's a video demonstration of a perpetual motion that starts as soon as the guy releases the brake.
DeleteIt would be relief to know that it is a fake after all the work I've put into my wheel.
It seems that old, beaten-to-death wanting notions never die.
ReplyDeleteTo wit
". . . However, when it comes to Bessler's wheels it is ALSO accurate to say that gravity DID help to extract energy / mass from the descending side weights at a greater rate than was consumed by the ascending side weights. What was leftover during this continuous transfer of energy / mass within a rotating wheel could then be used accelerate the wheel and power attached outside machinery."
This is a wearying, hoary thing now given new life again, by wide-eyed, misinforming youth. (Typically, as I have observed over a long while, the types get A's for effort and F's for accomplishment! Here, apparently, nothing has changed.)
Years ago, long-time respected member Kenneth Behrendt over on http://www.BesslerWheel.com/forum, drummed himself right out of our good company, by just not stopping his tiresome drone identical to this old wine being now poured into new bottles, compliments of our Youth of here-and-now.
Kenneth Behrendt.
Good fellow; fine writer; bad idea and, of course, the thing never went nor has it ever since. (Or, possibly, have we missed something? We await still good news.)
And further to collective, offended dismay our Youth asserts with maximal cheek like this
". . . to be ACCURATE because gravity contains NO energy / mass to be extracted! . . ."
and then tails his unqualified jackass of an assertion with a rhetorical
". . . How can one extract energy / mass from a MASSLESS field???"
If this last was MEANT to be answered, then I would say that it is because we do not YET know all that there is to be known about the BEHAVIOR of gravity.
Bessler presents a threat to the big-headed status quo of main-stream (Gustave, are you listening?) science.
And, more vexing still, 'we' know absolutely nothing about what it IS, actually.
(Please, if your will, do forgive my SHOUTS, as there is no italicizing possible here?)
Like overheated rats on holiday, regarding theories abound and proliferate but, it's just guesswork, all of it, some seemingly good, most not.
As to 'the real deal', we stumble pitifully in Egyptian Darkness.
"Their is no darkness but ignorance." - Shakespeare
James
Technoguy is Ken Behrendt.
DeleteI thought he was.
DeleteAnon 09:24 wrote:
ReplyDelete"All them free energy videos on the internet are fake..."
Sad, BUT unfortunately TRUE! That is why I do not waste precious research time downloading / viewing any of them. IF you want to reverse engineer Bessler's wheels then stick to HIS published clues (mountains of thanks to JC for making them available in English) and "Build, Baby, Build". There is NO other way!
Primemignonite (James) wrote with reference to Ken B.:
"Good fellow; fine writer; bad idea and, of course, the thing never went nor has it ever since."
Ken B. was probably the first true "right tracker" Bessler mobilist on planet Earth in almost 300 years and is even now VERY far down that track toward THE solution to Bessler's wheels (ahead of me, in fact, damn it!). I recently found out that he ALREADY has the FULL details of the Connectedness Principle AND the correct design of the "magic" levers that Bessler's wheels used (I, too, now have most of this information). If he also has the remaining details of the "Secret Principle" (which I still do NOT have) that governs the use of spring tension within Bessler's wheels, then it won't be long before he has a WORKING wheel model! He has stated in the past that if he can find THE design that Bessler used, he will not try to patent it, but will make it available to his fellow mobilists to work with.
Sooner or later, one of us will find the correct design and a new era of "self motive" devices can then begin!
Apparently most of you guys are trying to gain some fame. That is sad.
ReplyDeleteTG.,..I hope that if one of us demonstrates a working wheel,that you will believe it and not say it is fake due to sour grapes.!
ReplyDeleteIf it is the Bob Kostoff wheel you are referring to , i have studied it , it is an energy converter , the only way he can use the energy is to get it to spin a wheel and the the wheel turns a generator , its not powered by gravity , the energy comes from compressing of , i think a liquid or air .
DeleteIt is patented as an energy converter .
- Ealadha
Why do you say that, yellowson? I guess we'd all like to have a little more money but you can keep the fame.
ReplyDeleteJC
Actually, I'm against the current conversation between people on this blog. I have doubts but hopefully I still believe in Bessler, but in my honest opinion, the main reason behind this en-devour must be finding a solution to the energy crisis and enabling people to do what they want without needing money. This is the most important research topic of all time, the free energy; but you try to prove yourself rather than focusing on finding the solution. For example technoguy, please show us your right track man. Just show us the damn thing using some graphics. You don't need to prove yourself to anyone, you believe in yourself, let us believe in you. And, oh god, sometimes I feel like I am reading a blog about Shakespeare when I see some comments...that words..just use simple, plain english. Let me put this way, most of you are acting like Bessler. He was obviously wrong in his manners. He prefer money and fame. Ironically, he didn't realize that if he had told the secret, he would have been famous and rich...OK..anger mode is turned of.
DeleteJames "primemignonite" does have a somewhat.. unique way with words. I think the professor he is talking about is Donald Simanek. If you take the trouble to read, he is a very eloquent physicist. The essays concerning philosophy and physics are particularly interesting; he has several entries on misuse of logic, misuse of analogies, misuse of physics terms, etc., as well as the perpetual motion section.
DeleteHa,ha John,..It's amazing how money or power changes a man.
ReplyDeleteTrevor wrote:
Delete"TG.,..I hope that if one of us demonstrates a working wheel,that you will believe it and not say it is fake due to sour grapes.!"
I actually VERY much hope someone manages to find a WORKING PM design and I will accept it IF it is proven to be genuine and not just the usual internet hoax. Indeed, I will even ENVY that lucky discoverer. However, that does not mean that I will acknowledge the design as being THE one that Bessler found. Right now, I believe that there have only been TWO working wheel designs that have been found: Bessler's and Asa Jackson's. EVERYTHING else is a hoax or a "non runner".
Trevor,
ReplyDeleteYour not the only one concerned about other ideas out there that may work.
personally concerned about the force multiplier device, (link below), as it looks similar to the system i am working on.
Due to having achieved the same results of multiplying force, without using gearing e.t.c., doubt it is fake.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Fernando_Sixto_Ramos_Solano:_Force_Multiplier_System
P.47
yellowson wrote:
ReplyDelete"For example technoguy, please show us your right track man. Just show us the damn thing using some graphics. You don't need to prove yourself to anyone, you believe in yourself, let us believe in you."
I'm sorely tempted to, but the time is not yet right. I don't want to present something that is not 100% operational yet. When I finally make it to the end of the "right track" (assuming someone else does not beat me to it!), I will release the design. I should say that what little information I've released so far is only VERY general in nature.
The design Bessler used involved precisely shaped levers with precisely located cord / spring attachment points on them. The cords came in sets of eight cords and each set contained cords of a different length. Also, the levers must have precise starting orientations at the beginning of each 45 degree increment of drum rotation which are then repeated at the end of each increment of drum rotation. The springs also have precise attachment points and must have the correct tension.
Yes, the design can be illustrated with a "quick and dirty" sketch, but to have value to an ACTIVE model building BESSLER mobilist, ALL of the precise dimensions must be listed. IF I am successful, I WILL make this detailed info available to the VERY few who will have the skills necessary to use it. For the masses of inactive armchair philosophers out there who are "just curious", a general diagram and, perhaps, even a nice video of the design in motion will suffice and will also be provided.