Sunday, 6 May 2012

Memo to self: working model only - no paper designs!

Almost since I published my first book, I've had the privilege of being asked for my opinion on other people's designs for gravitywheels, and I have been perfectly willing to take a look at each one.  I have always warned the person in advance that I might not accept that their design was valid but that I could be wrong.  I have so far never received anything I thought held promise and even after receiving both warm thanks and not so warm ones, it wasn't that which decided me against looking at any more.  I have been working on my own design ideas and building model wheel since I was in my 20s and that was a long time ago, and realised that if I was given a design to look at and found that it was similar to one I was currently working on, how could I prove that I had come up with the design myself - and had not taken the idea from anything anyone sent to me?

Once that thought took hold I decided against looking at any more designs, partly to avoid giving people bad news, and I am the first to admit I could be wrong, but also to avoid getting into priority disputes and ensuing accusations and counter-accusations.

However I fell into a trap of my own making this week by over-reacting to comments made on this blog, and my resolve not to consider another person's design  weakened temporarily. The result is that someone who has their own cherished idea of how the wheel worked feels slighted simply because I disagreed with them, even though I could be wrong.

This episode has highlighted something I should have been all too well aware of by now and have frequently urged others not to do - it's no good posting designs for gravitywheels because no-one will accept anything except a working model. So regretfully I have decided against sharing my design for now and will continue to try to build my own working version because I know from bitter experience that no one will accept my design without the proof of principle that validates it.  

I apologise for taking this decision but it seemed to me that I was about to do what I have urged people not to do too many times to count. I can't believe I almost fell in to the same trap I have warned others against so many times!

But my personal opinion remains the same, my design will work!  I had planned to finish it on or around the 300th anniversary but if it's a few weeks late it's only my own reputation that will suffer and the wheel will make its appearance when it's ready.  It isn't that the wheel does not work, but that the mechanism isn't quite achieving what it is designed to do and there are a number of variations available which have to be built in order to see which is the most effective.  I'm happy that the basic concept is right as is the overall design.

Once this current build (which has been going on for months!) is tested and found wanting I will share the information, but I cannot give up the construction of  potentially successful wheel now, just because the anniversary is nearly here.

JC

74 comments:

  1. Hmmm......I think you might want to put your tin hat on John (grin)

    I agree with your decision and reasoning and, to be honest, it wasn't completely unexpected.

    However, not intending to be rude; you do appear to be becoming more undecisive in your actions

    .....so get a grip man!! LOL

    Best wishes for a successful outcome

    Regards

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes indecision come with old age I guess, Mick. Actually its not indecision really, it's just that the time I have for wheel building is limited by demands on my time by family (no complaints though). I haven't finished the document I am writing which explains everything, and although I've got about half way through writing the text for the video, there's still lots to do before I even begin to record it. So Bessler's anniversary has come too soon for me!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  3. What I read here is a bitter disappointment for me I have to say. You know John that you're not one of the good builders so lets assume you really have the solution but you're going to fail with your models further on then will you take your solution to the grave? That would be a waste! Bessler's anniversary may come to early for you but you really should consider to publish your workings one day in any case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey S.O.P.M. - cheer up, I'm only taking an extra bit of time to complete my model, then sharing and explaining will follow, wheel working or not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chris, does it really matter if John, or I, or anybody else here does or doesn't see the merit of your design? I too have (several even) design(s) that I think could/should work, I even tested a few principles that -according to many- shouldn't work and yet they do, so I had (and still have) some reason to be optimistic. But if others think it will work. or not, doesn't matter much. After all, even confronted with a giant, certified, and obviously working wheel many of Besslers contemporaries refused to accept it.

    You asked John his honest opinion and that's exactly what he gave you from a Bessler-perspective. Like I said before: the fact that he doesn't see it as a Bessler design doesn't mean it cannot work. In fact he never claimed that it can't work - he just doesn't see it as a Bessler-type of mechanism. So what? If you know for sure that you design has merit - be very critical and rigorously scientific in your approach is the best advice I can give you - just go on with it. Don't blame John for disappointing you when he only gave you his honest assessment - just as you requested.

    My designs are not Bessler's too, and I realize it. In fact I even cheat as I use electromechanical tricks. As with many things, there's probably many ways of accomplishing the goal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Super attitude Andre. Bravo.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am a pretty good listener, according to many. And yes, the question wasn't directed at me personally. But this is a open forum, after all, so I thought I'd share my opinion with you. If you don't like that, don't post on open fora.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, I think I can safely assume that John's opinion is from a Bessler-perspective, as that obviously is his area of study and expertise. He has no reason or motive to assess it in any other way, IMHO. Of course you can and have the right to dispute that, but then you'd have to back that up. If you have indisputable information that is of great importance to (Bessler)mobilists in general I respectfully suggest that you go public with it, as John has.

    It's not a question of John or whomever being "too dull", it's a question of reinforcing your argument with facts if others don't see it the way you do.

    John (and others) see things the way the see it based on their knowledge and experience based on their study of Bessler. You see things differently and that is your good right. Assemble ten people in a room and you'll quickly encounter ten different opinions about all kinds of topics.

    If you want to convince somebody, anybody, about whatever topic: reinforce your argument with facts (for all to see), that is all I am saying.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is only one winner in this game and that's the man who brings a working wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here: let me answer myself and show you how this conversation should be going.

    Chris ,
    So then if I have your story correct you are saying that your idea is based on something that has been overlooked , discarded or otherwise unseen by the millions of folks that have looked at the existing documentation , even the venerable John Collins , or even especially John Collins ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To which I say: why not show us or describe it instead of merely complaining?

      Delete
    2. If it worked, you would not have to ask for anybody's opinion. You are both unstable blowhards.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which only proves that other people - not just JC - think that your design is wanting. But as I said, that should not discourage you. We share ideas and concepts here, freely and openly. JC has his ideas, TG has his own concept of the mechanism, and so do I and others. So? That's freedom of opinion. Surely you can accept that others have their own ideas?

      If you can elaborate on your concept, reinforce your argument, surely people will listen. And by doing so you also establish priority, which is always a good idea.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  17. @ JC

    Yes, I,m a tad disappointed too and your latest announcement will definitely take some of the excitement out of the upcoming tricentennial festivities. However, I shouldn't complain because I now have a strict policy of not releasing any designs unless I'm 100% sure they will work. Right now I'm only 98% sure which, while certainly better than 0%, is not enough to make THE WORLD sit up and take notice. Besides, the anticipation of the additional clue interpretations you will be releasing in the aftermath of the 300th anniversary will give us all something to look forward to.

    Over the decades I have had several mobilists privately approach me looking for validation of their designs. When I told them that it was unworkable, couldn't be made workable, and that I wouldn't spend another second working on it if I was them, I would get one of two reactions. About 50% of them would thank me for being brutally honest and then be off chasing some other "wrong track" design. The other 50% would react with hostility and assert that I was not competent to "properly" evaluate their design or that I really KNEW it was good and was probably going to steal the idea and use it at some future time for my own financial benefit! I can assure everyone that I NEVER did that and don't now even recall any of the designs I've seen. I should also mention that over 90% of these "mobilists" did NOT even have a physical model. All they had was a sketch and a dream.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disappointing. And being rude doesn't help either. Good luck convincing others by complaining, then.

      Delete
  19. Chris wrote:

    "We all agree that the "toys page" is a big clue..."

    I do agree that Bessler is telling something important on the "toys page". The message is clear to me. He is telling us that his wheels can maintain an elevated (relative to the floor beneath a wheel) CoM of their weights (indicated by the spinning top with its CoM raised above the floor) by utilizing the repeated and sequential application (as indicated by the Jacob's Ladder) of leverage (as indicated by the scissor jack and the hammermen toy).

    However, one has to be very careful NOT to take the "toys page" images TOO literally and then try to directly translate them into mechanisms. Many newbie Bessler mobilists (newbie Bessler mobilist = someone who has so far been chasing the Bessler wheel solution for less than six months!) make this mistake and produce various amusing designs that have two interconnected weighted levers swinging back and forth like those hammers on the parallelogram toys in the center of the page. Sooner or later one of them will actually present a design that contains hammers being wielded by miniature automatons! LOL!

    Anyway, if you have noticed something that nobody else has on the "toys page", then why not just state it here and now without revealing the design you have that is based on it? At least in that way you will establish YOUR priority to the observation and then, later, IF anyone can make a WORKING design out of it or stumbles upon the same one you privately revealed to JC, you can at least validate a claim to having found this missed anomaly first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, TG. Well put. Chris is disappointed - well, I am also disappointed that he decided to leave based on what appears to be hurt feelings. And subsequently proclaimed that he'll "take my ideas, findings and complaints elsewhere" as if it is some kind of punishment for us. Maybe his concept is brilliant, well then we'll know when he receives the Nobel Price. Or maybe we'll never hear again. Still its a shame.

      Why oh why is everybody so absolutely convinced that his or hers design is the only possible way and everybody else must be barking mad for not immediately agreeing? Surely thousands of years of evolution would/should have instilled some patience and understanding in humanity as a whole.

      On the other hand, switching on the TV (and off again, quickly) convinces one that not much has changed over the millennia.

      If only we could cooperate better and more effectively.

      Delete
  20. John, I think my invitation to the tricentennial festivities got lost in the mail.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm sorry you have taken my negative opinion so badly Chris, but it illustrates the dilemma anyone faces who agrees to review a design; a good response is welcomed and bad one is often responded to with hostility. I warned you that I would be honest and you might not like my answer, in our earlier emails.

    I do understand how you feel as I have also published ideas which some have dismissed without hesitation. You yourself have been scornfully dismissive of my speculation about the coded information, but you are entitled to your opinion as are all of us and I respect that.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  23. Andre wrote:

    "Why oh why is everybody so absolutely convinced that his or hers design is the only possible way and everybody else must be barking mad for not immediately agreeing? "

    The problem, I think, is that we can start out with a particular intriguing design or general approach that seems, at first glance to be completely logical and workable, then, slowly, over time we actually become emotionally attached to it. The somewhat INTENTIONALLY ambiguous nature of the "clues" in the Bessler literature only tends to encourage this emotional attachment process. Eventually, unless we are careful, we can lose our objectivity and begin to routinely rationalize away anyone's criticism of our design or approach. At some point, there is the risk of viewing ALL criticisms of our design or approach as "personal". At that point one becomes more convinced than ever that his design MUST work and ANYONE challenging that belief must be doing so for nefarious reasons.

    I've known inventors that were so emotionally invested in PM designs that they were actually planning to obtain a patent for them WITHOUT even constructing a working model first! That's right, they considered their idea so novel and so obviously workable that there was really no need to even "reduce it to practice". Fortunately, the US Patent Office put a stop to this waste of money when they made it a requirement that they will only grant a patent on a "free energy" or "overunity" type device AFTER the inventor has produced a WORKING model of it for their examination. So far, they are still waiting!

    I can only again suggest to the Bessler mobilists out there in PMland to obtain a copy of an easy to use sim program (such as Working Model 2D), spent the few hours poking around with it required in order to learn how to "build" models with it on a monitor screen, and then test out your design to see if it has any potential of being a "runner". I learned the HARD way over many years NOT to trust a quick eye balling of a design to determine if it was good or not. Once you start building your computer models, you will be surprised at how wrong your "mechanical instincts" can be about how mechanisms actually function in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good observations and advice, TG. We are a rather odd species, are we not? I am very much looking forward to hear about John's clues and findings.

      Delete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Chris, there's only one person making you look like an idiot. Anyway, I thought you'd gone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Chris, there's only one person making you look like an idiot... Anyway, I thought you'd gone.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I've been looking back through designs people have sent me over the last 9 years and it amounts to 23 which is slightly more than two a year. Three people have sent me two designs, the rest one. There have been four people who have reacted badly to my opinion but later all four apologised and in time accepted that I was right in my opinion.

    I learned pretty quickly to stress that it was just my opinion and in every case I urged them to build a proof of principle wheel if they wished to prove me wrong.

    Chris's reaction has proved to be the most offensive and in my opinion, completely uncalled for and has confirmed in me the determination never to review another design.

    Having said that I would have welcomed it with joy if any of the 23 designs had been proven valid and had led to a working wheel.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh , I get it now ... as long as it's an opinion you don't have to be responsible for it if it's right or wrong . It took me 46 years for that one to sink in John .

    ReplyDelete
  30. wow , John you are validating your opinion based on other people's failures instead of your own success ... that is a hell of a way to roll . If you had approved of any of the designs you'd have been wrong . John , there is no risk in that game . You have to stick your neck out . You are playing the same card and that's the status quot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, your very ofensive reaction only reinforce the saying:
      There's a reason why God didn't give wings to scorpions.

      AntiChris
      Humility above all

      Delete
    2. Explain wasps and hornets then .

      Delete
  31. "It isn't that the wheel does not work, but that the mechanism isn't quite achieving what it is designed to do".

    Understatement of the century.

    Try using a COMPUTER, as has been said many times here... Why are you wasting time building a model, which ISN'T going to work, when a computer simulation would have told you that in ten minutes?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Chris Wilson, where is your working model? What are you complaining about? It should be so simple that even a carpenter's boy could build and understand it. Why haven't you?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I hear what you say anon, and if you wish to animate my design for me please let me know.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you for providing the clues you have given. Will you continue to provide clues as you move forward with your design?

    My brother in law has a rigid swing that I was able to stand on over the weekend and perform your movements and they do indeed work well. Once you build up speed, you can really feel how standing at 6pm affects the speed - sort of like spinning around with your arms extended, a free weight in each hand, and pulling your arms in. You get a kick.

    Rick

    ReplyDelete
  35. I had an inclination (out of frustration ) to publish the same thing I sent to John last night and let the world judge if it might be significant or not . It seems John can't give an inch for anyone's ideas except for his own . Of course he is always going to humbly admit that he could be wrong along with passing that standard on to other's work. And being an expert on Bessler it stands to reason that John's device should stand above all others as " the true device ." John , it seems to me that even more so than I you have the burden of producing something that works ... especially if your opinion is to mean anything to anyone .
    That is the problem as far as I can tell , all these experts and nothing that works .

    ReplyDelete
  36. Christo I feel for you ... I hope you can move forward with your design.

    If I may, I have been following your posts since you first stated you found the solution, a variation of MT11. With all your gained experience, can you say if this is still a viable option. In some ways it is similar to the Pop Keenie wheel and I believe that was a runner, at least there is evidence of such.

    Rick

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rick you are incorrect in your assumption and reference to MT11 ...the # is much higher than that .

    ReplyDelete
  38. Chris,

    I was referring back to your post when you said you could see the image in the solid disk (well more like filled with grey dots). Hope you know what I am referring to.

    Rick

    ReplyDelete
  39. I saw a lot of things back then , none of of them nearly as rational as what I'm doing now .

    ReplyDelete
  40. Chris,

    I am at work (shhhh) so I don't have access to all my files, but maybe I have the wrong MT design or maybe you moved on as you gained insight. Anyway I am a strong believer in the Pop Keenie wheel for the simple fact that there is a Bessler connection and a wheel was recovered. True a lot of the parts (rack, external gears, some type of pendulum/hammer) are missing but the general wheel design is there. That is what keeps me going. I hope you rejoin the forum or start your own. You don't have to give away your design, but it would be nice to have constructive feedback from someone that understands the movement. I believe Ken on besslerwheel.com is going thru some of what you went thru. It is a real shame that everyone that finds the solution is driven out for not disclosing their solution. We need mentors such as yourself to help guide without giving the answer. I think everyone would feel much more gratification and sense of accomplishment if they were able to find the solution on their own.

    Rick

    ReplyDelete
  41. Chris, I really don't know what you want me to do. Do you wish that I would change my opinion that your design will not work? How can I do that, it is my opinion drawn from my own experience in mechanics? I can see that you have derived it from some drawings of Bessler's, I see no problem with that. That is what I have done too although not those particular drawings.

    It's not a case of giving an inch, you asked me to look at your design, I did. If you think I'm too dumb to see that it will work, well that is your opinion and I don't know what I can do about it. I have no illusions about my own design, not after all these years of consistent failures and neither should you. We all believe in our own designs at one time or another otherwise we would never get anything built or tested. But as time passes we see where we went wrong and we return to the drawing board with fresh ideas and start again. I know I do and I'm sure you must have experienced that over the years.

    I gave an honest response to your request with no intention to put my own designs above yours or anyone else's. At the end of the day I just want someone somewhere to solve this puzzle so we can get on with our lives. I looked at your design because you convinced me that you had found the solution. I was probably almost as disappointed as you were that I thought it did not answer. I had already imagined my response to you if I found it a valid design, and it was triumphal! So please don't think I dismissed it without wishing and hoping that you had succeeded.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yes, Anonymous May 7, 2012 10:14 AM, I will continue to provide clues as I move forward with my design, and I'm delighted to know you tested the swing theory!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  43. John,

    First I want to say it is a real honor to converse with you. You are a real patriot.

    I first became interested in Bessler after coming across Alden Parks explanation of Bessler's Little Book. I'm sure you are probably very familiar with this document. You can easily tell where Alden is commenting in the document. I am interested in the section that begins with "A Little Book Interpretation" and seems to be narrated by Bessler. This is very descriptive and I am wondering if this was indeed written by Bessler?

    Thanks,
    Rick

    ReplyDelete
  44. John ,
    All in all you are correct in that I have no idea if the device will work but for you to assert that it is not Bessle-type is just too much for me to absorb given the fact that you , whether you admit it or not have neither fulfilled the "burden of proof" to validate your opinion . In other words John you subtly make statements with your "opinion" that other's would be scorned for ... like claiming to be able to recognize a Bessler-type mechanism .

    ReplyDelete
  45. So tell us then John in all your infinite wisdom, without beating around the bush : What is the mechanical expression of Bessler's "principle of excess weight " ? Bessler said it was hard to comprehend so explain it to us .

    ReplyDelete
  46. John,
    Since you don't seem to understand I will explain it to you very simply : You're no more an expert on a Bessler-Type mechanism than the man on the moon . You can pretend to be and your followers can pretend that you are but you know and I know that it's just not so . The only person that could have truly had a Bessler-Type perspective or device is Bessler . All of the information and clues are out there for everyone to absorb , speculate on and whatnot . The only device that I know of which fits the requirements for a Bessler-Type mechanism is what I presented to you and I can't claim that I drew it . Computer's are a wonder John , they take something that it would have been very difficult to do in Bessler's day and make it all too easy .

    ReplyDelete
  47. Chris, SHUT UP!!!!!!! Find a new hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  48. PM is a catch-22 in physical form.

    "A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation in which an individual cannot avoid a problem because of contradictory constraints or rules. Often these situations are such that solving one part of a problem only creates another problem, which ultimately leads back to the original problem. Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over."

    ReplyDelete
  49. The information I have is now posted at the Besslerwheel forum in the Community Buzz section for anyone/everyone's scrutiny .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am banned from the bessler forum . Not anyone can see it in community buzz section .
      - Ealadha

      Delete
  50. Are you talking about the 135 drawing with the superimposed lever?

    I don't see anything in that either. But I don't have a PM machine.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Both drawings are from MT...

    ReplyDelete
  52. And the explanation of the working principle will come later .

    ReplyDelete
  53. John,
    For what it's worth I apologize but I feel that some of the points I made were not only fair but necessary . I put a lot of thought into this , a lot of heart . Let's not forget that the device was simple and accorded to true physical principles . As you don't recognize those principles based on my explanation I only have to conclude that you either can't or won't think about them .

    ReplyDelete
  54. Chris wrote:

    "The information I have is now posted at the Besslerwheel forum in the Community Buzz section for anyone/everyone's scrutiny."

    I'm not a member of that site and don't want to join just to view one person's design. Why not publish the info in their General forum so that anyone can view it without having to join a private forum? IF you have anything that looks impressive, I will try to model it if that can be done and see what it's potential is and then report back here on the results.

    There have been many proposals for the design Bessler used over the years that mobilists claimed were derived from the clues in the Bessler literature. NONE have ever worked, so, obviously, either the mobilists did not use all of the clues or, if they did, they did not interpret them correctly. Having a design based on a correct interpretation of SOME of the clues is far different from having one based on ALL of the clues. (My goal, of course, is to produce one design based on correct interpretations of all of the clues which I am confident that I am now doing with my "right track" approach.)


    Doug asked Chris with reference to his design: "Are you talking about the 135 drawing with the superimposed lever?"

    When I view MT 135 all I see is an incomplete design without its "prime mover". I think the purpose of this illustration was to show his students how they could pass 6 wooden slats thorough an axle without them touching each other and interfering with each other's motions. Possibly, rather than wood, the slats could have been made from long rectangular pieces of iron which would then function as sliding weights and which, after being shifted by the missing prime mover, would have maintained their CoM on the axle's descending side.

    My research indicates that there were no cords or rods that passed through the section of the axle inside of Bessler's wheel drums. However, MT 135 does illustrate an important design concept that WAS used in Bessler's wheels. To prevent any two slats from touching in MT 135, they must be placed into SEPARATE parallel planes that are each perpendicular to the axle. According to my research, EACH of the 8 weighted lever sub wheels within ONE of Bessler's two directional wheels required a total of 48 cords to "coordinate" the motions of its levers (that means the wheel's two sub wheels used a total of 96 cords! I know, it's alot of cords, but one must get used to it if he wants to make progress).

    These 48 cords had to be VERY carefully arranged into separate "layers" within the sub wheel in order to prevent any two of them from rubbing. How many layers were needed? Well, MT 135 uses 6 separate "layers" for its 6 slats, but I think that it might be possible to place the 48 cords found in one of Bessler's sub wheel into LESS than 6 layers! Finding the optimum number has proven to be a complex problem in geometry and logic which I continue to make slow progress on.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous May 2012 19:47

    Thanks for your kind words. Alden Parks gave me his document to review some years ago and I complimented him on the document but advised him to reduce the religious aspect, as apparently did other reviewers.

    The problem as I see it is that everything in it is his own interpretation of what Bessler wrote and although I too have speculated upon various features of Bessler's work, I have tried to separate fact from fancy and have said which is which. Alden is less clear about that.

    Alden drew his interpretation of the 'little book' from the words in Apologia Poetica. To date and as far as I know, the only words written by Bessler appear in the books I published, and the letters recorded in my biography him. That may change as further documents get translated.

    So read Alden's account but please bear in mind it is an interpretation and not to be taken too literally.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  56. Tg, the other drawing is 142, flipped right to left, so The left side has the higher weight.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Here is Chris's explanation for it:


    Here is my explanation of the device which I sent in an email to someone:
    The attached images are what I found in your/ Bessler's publications .There is no doubt in my mind that these two images were created as complimentary to each other but Bessler also wanted whoever found them to be able to discern the movement on their own . I will briefly explain the principle which I think Bessler employed in this device to produce P.M. . The two "hoops" are the basic structure of the device ( connected as one structure at he intersections of the lever arms )and each has it's own support from the axle by an armature which goes along the diameter of each "hoop" . There are two angled levers which extend from the center and terminate as the round compound pendulums . They are of two different leverage advantages . The higher one has a shorter arm pinned to the hoops ( indicated to me that this is his one directional wheel ) . The weights inside of the compound pendulums are affixed so that they are raised as they move outward thereby having a " tendency " to be drawn inward . The spokes from the axle are arranged in 30 degree increments and produce and alternating impulse delivered to the structure by way of the compound pendulums . In the center thee is a weighted "flail" or rod , spoke ...whatever , that is tethered to the lowermost center "arm" by a slack cord with "stop balls " at both ends . This is to keep the arm generally in agreement with the motion . Now the working principle seems to be based on the Parable of the Talents in the New Testament whereby the best guys trades all of their talents for more talents ....in other words they give all to receive more back . The downward "skinny" arms are sringy so that they load up when against the inner "hoop" alternately . The "flail" only contacts one of the arms at a time and at each impulse the arm is reversed and begins to "fall" before it gets the impulse from the spoke . The "flail" is the excess weight in that it has to be affecting one side or the other to sustain the motion . Also while in an intermediate location the weight of the "flail" has little or no affect at all and does not impede the movement .
    P.S. Put more simply the two lever arms "spin" the central spoke only after it has reversed in direction after the initial push thereby keeping the horse before the cart.

    It's difficult to see what he's describing in the drawing because it's so faded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I gather from the description, it sounds to me somewhat like the "Ursach" proposal of the pendulums. See http://www.ursach.ch/Bessler/bessler_e.php

      If you scroll down to the first animation on that page to see what I mean. Although Ursach proposes a rather different prime mover based on his analysis of the texts (including a resonating axle i.e. moving pivot) it is based on properties of oscillation in combination with pendulums. Together with the smart torque storage mechanism Ursach came up with I always thought that was a rather smart idea.

      Interesting.

      Delete
    2. Nothing like it . Bessler said his device was free of "clockwork" and such mechanisms . There is neither any clockwork in my proposed design . In other words : uncomplicated is best .

      Delete
    3. No clockwork, I agree - Ursach's design/interpretation has no clockwork either. But the text Doug posted reminded me somewhat of that design: the hoops, arms with round pendulums, even the effect c.q. tendency of being drawn inward (Ursach uses a moving pivot/axle for that). Even the braking of the freefall pendulums sounds right to me. Do you "store the torque" as well to release it later again to keep the main structure (hoops) going?

      I'm just trying to form a mental picture by reading the above text, and perhaps I'm way off course, but I find it interesting.

      Delete
    4. My "Torque Storage " device is the complete structure as a whole I guess I could say . The thing to understand is that at every impulse the "excess weight" is once again both used and created . This is basically a balanced device which uses pressure from momentum and extension to drive itself .

      Delete
  58. John,

    Thanks for the information regarding Alden Parks. Looks like I will be purchasing the downloadable version of Apologia Poetica so I can investigate further. Thanks again.

    Rick

    ReplyDelete

Bessler’s Clues Here and on Besslerwheel forum

I’ve decided to go back to my original plan which was to share everything I’ve discovered and know, or believe about Bessler’s wheel.  It ha...