Friday, 6 July 2012

Maybe there weren't five mechanisms?

Bessler's clues, some of which I have indicated, both here and on my other websites, are not particularly open to accurate interpretation prior to one's gaining personal knowledge of the design of some features of the wheel.  This might indicate that his main purpose in leaving so many clues, was to give himself the opportunity at a later date, to point to them and explain them, in the event of a dispute about who discovered the secret of the gravitywheel first, thus proving his priority in the matter.

But even if this is so, it does not rule out the possibility that he intended someone to take the time to try and understand them, and his prescient comment about accepting post-humous fame if no sale was ever achieved in his lifetime, seems to support this conjecture. 

One of the things I have found recently, is that the discovery of a particular feature of the design that I suddenly comprehend with my own prototype build, that looks as though it might prove extremely useful, often finds support in a previously misunderstood clue of Bessler's.

I now have to admit that I might be wrong about my predilection for assuming that Bessler's wheel had five mechanisms.  A discovery only yesterday has thrown my mind into confusion because I believe I have stumbled upon the real reason for the ubiquity of the number five clues.  This does not necessarily negate my previous stance in believing that five mechanisms were a vital ingredient, but it does throw the whole issue into doubt.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10i1k12l3m6n14o14r5s17t1u6v5w4y4-3,1’1.

62 comments:

  1. I think Bessler's clues were his way of "dressing up " his device . I think the main mechanism ( though there may have been any number of them in the wheel for their effect to overlap ) was extremely simple just as Karl indicated . I am glad to be on a non-committal road with this thing . I feel at least that I am learning all the time . My current thoughts are centered around finding " that which moves itself " and what may have been the "humble tool" that Bessler wrote about .

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...togliete un attimo la mente da questa confusione di indizi distorti volutamente, ora ragionate come un sistema può funzionare....cosa deve accadere per poter funzionare...e per funzionare deve avere una buona coppia per vincere qualsiasi attrito....pensate cosa succederebbe in acqua....pensate di risolvere il problema al contrario con la spinta idrostatica.....vi aiuterà a trovare le risposte...
    questo e' il mio ultimo commento...la soluzione esiste davvero....

    ITL...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. remove the mind from this confusion by purposely distorted evidence, now you reason as a system can work .... what needs to happen for this to work ... and to work must have a good pair to win any friction .... think what would happen in the water .... will you solve the problem on the contrary with the buoyancy ..... will help you find answers ...
      This is my last comment ... the solution really exists ....

      Delete
  3. Sounds like your starting to realize that your 5 mechanism wheel isn't going to be a "runner" and, most likely, can not be modified to become one! If so, then that did not surprise me. Your 5 mechanisms are, apparently, "isolated" with no interconnecting cords between them and no tensioning springs for energy / mass storage and delayed release. That violates one of the cardinal TRUTHS of the "right track" approach to replicating Bessler's wheels: "No cords plus no springs equals NO PM!"

    You wrote:

    "Bessler's clues...are not particularly open to accurate interpretation prior to one's gaining personal knowledge of the design of some features of the wheel."

    This line should be printed in inch high letters in all of your books about Bessler! This is why anyone who intends on ACCURATELY interpreting the clues needs to be SIMULTANEOUSLY building / modeling and then immediately using the results he gets to continuously modify his interpretations of the various clues as he goes along. His mind must actually become part of a bizarre feedback loop with the Bessler clues! It is a SLOW and TEDIOUS process and that is why I always have a chuckle when a newbie mobilist arrives on the scene and announces that he just read SOME of the clues published online and IMMEDIATELY realized EXACTLY how Bessler's wheels worked. Yeah right! That's like a baby taking his first look out a window at the full moon and immediately realizing how the universe was formed! LOL!

    "I now have to admit that I might be wrong about my predilection for assuming that Bessler's wheel had five mechanisms."

    No problem, but once you finally settle on an 8 "perpetual motion structure" count per one-directional wheel, you will find yourself becoming more "devoted" to that number than you ever were to 5. In numerology, 8 is a number associated with completion, finality, and perfection. It is truly, for numerological reasons, a number that Bessler would have gravitated toward rather than 5. For the purpose of constructing an OB PM gravity wheel, it's also a collection of 4 diametrically OPPOSED pairs of perpetual motion structures or weighted levers. One can also think of the 8 mechanisms as forming two crosses that are superimposed over each other. That geometry would certainly have appealed to an uber-religious man like Bessler.

    Methinks, John, that it won't be too long before YOU are firmly on the "right track" along with me and a handful of others...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Primemignonite7 July 2012 at 05:32

      From it's first sentence above, might anyone know from whence that quote "No cords plus no springs equals NO PM!" came? It was put in quotes by the technorat itself, and so I suppose it to have been written by Bessler or Wagner maybe, from some supposed list of "cardinal TRUTHS"?

      (As to veracity, it seems to me somewhat suspect.)

      Once again, compliments of technorat, we are noticed by his great "authority" to the effect that . . .

      "Methinks, John, that it won't be too long before YOU are firmly on the "right track" along with me and a handful of others..."

      Here, with this one, one could rightly wonder: are cheek and insolence (watch out for them!) EVER to have ANY limits put-on whatever??? (Probably, the correct but sad-but-true answer presents it's own self?)

      Within one of the last thread's posts, technorat revealed to us all positively that he/she/it it American!

      Did we not already guess it, and handily?

      Only we Americans can be so very insolent and yet, so unaware so pridefully and all these at the same time! In this art, we are unique. ('Takes one to know one.')

      Now, two most peculiar tag-team personages have come to dominate John Collins' blog. Without even a whimper from Authority, they have taken it over thoroughly and without apology.

      Must this quo of status continue-on, with these masturbators-in-type going on-and-on unchecked utterly, insulting, pronouncing on this thing here as if fact, or on that there, but coming with absolutely no more authority for backing up any of their spewage than just the wordy, Ejaculate Product itself?

      (And certainly, no wheels aturning, just mouths aflapping perpetually! That part they've got!)

      And . . . so, so wearyingly . . . these trolls' cheap, monotone acts never change!

      It's just the same old unsupported drivel said in new and ever-novel ways, but with always new slaps to be done at the face of our esteemed Author/Moderator, John Collins!

      To them, why is this necessary???

      (Yes! Only monks' patience and saints' understanding could possibly account for this going-on, unchecked now for so long a time.)

      What might be the actual purpose of it all?

      (Here we enter the Realm Of The Rhetorical, for it is obvious it is done for their gratification alone, all at the expense of the patient, decent others that abide the exercises of those flagrant, flaming self-manias.)

      One particular chap that runs his own Forum over on BWF, tends to his matters there by having in one hand a paddle, and in the other an iron rod!

      When some too-presuming respondent gets a bit too frisky, then WHACK goes the paddle with a warning ensuing! One more bit of stepping out-of-line (and that's all it takes - I've seen it) then is it the rod, and that person becomes 'no longer' on that Forum!

      I don't know how one might style it other than as 'a rule by right for right' perhaps?

      Because of the extreme order and respect commanded for it's operator that does result, mightn't it be seen as a fair model for the emulating by others? (Just a thought.)

      James (TD)

      Delete
  4. Hhhmm - I didn't say I was now moving away from five mechanisms, TG, just that another aspect relating to the number 5 had appeared and therefore I could now consider that there might be two (or more) reasons for the use of the 5, and/or that I had the wrong one. I remain open to the suggestion that it needed five mechanisms, but I'm keeping my options open.

    And even if five mechanisms doesn't work, I see no reason to jump to eight. I would go back to testing two, three and four before testing eight.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ JC

      I must have misinterpreted the "tone" of your blog entry, especially after reading a line like:

      "I now have to admit that I might be wrong about my predilection for assuming that Bessler's wheel had five mechanisms."

      Well, if it does not work with 5, then it probably won't work with 4, 3, or 2 either. I, of course, remain FIRMLY convinced that 8 was the correct number of weighted levers used in Bessler's one-directional wheels / sub wheels. However, I do remain "open" to the possibility of using as few as 6 weighted levers. If I am successful in getting a wheel with 8 weighted levers to run, then I may explore the possibility of doing the same by using only 6.

      Meanwhile, I look forward to reading more about this line:

      "A discovery only yesterday has thrown my mind into confusion because I believe I have stumbled upon the real reason for the ubiquity of the number five clues."

      Delete
  5. Am I correct, John, when I speculate that you think that Bessler perhaps meant that five "principles" or five types of mechanisms are required?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just for $#its and giggles: my latest animation has six so-called "mechanisms" that work in pairs ... so you could think of it ( if you wanted to ) as three mechanisms . As far as the overbalance is concerned I guess (the theory is) an even number will not provide as much ( supposed ) force (2<3) but this is contrary to what Bessler said in that if you don't know how 1 can be >4 then your motion will not perpetuate . Just for the sake of expanding the notion lets say that a pound falls 4/4THS ...which is 1/2 of the wheels circumference then for every 1/4 of the pound's travel the 4 pounds would rise twice and fall twice and upon arriving at the bottom of the wheel would be right there with the 1 pound and incapable of lifting anything especially itself along with the one pound . So taken literally this "clue" makes no sense . Bessler is saying that there is an "easy" way to "lightly" lift a heavy weight and if you don't know this then all the "hard" and "difficult" work (in your wheel) you do will not serve you or anyone else because it will never produce anything compared to what it would if you knew .

    ReplyDelete
  7. "then for every 4/4ths of the pound's travel" I meant to say above...

    ReplyDelete
  8. If five mechanisms don't work, also any other number of mechanisms won't work, to me this is pure logic. Before this year ends I really hope to prove that a one-mechanism wheel can easily work, with almost no noise and without any springs and cords. Strange statement, hm?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you. One mechanism that lifts the weight at the top and at the bottom at the same time. The wheel consists of two major components, an overbalanced wheel like MT9 (take your pick) and a prime mover that does the lifting.

      Delete
    2. All of the "flip over" type devices illustrated in MT are UNworkable, but, then again, they really contained to diametrically opposed mechanisms that work together every 180 degrees of frame rotation (I write "frame" because most of the devices illustrated don't have a drum containing the mechanisms).

      However, I think that Asa Jackson DID prove that a single, central mechanism could be used to turn a wheel via a series of torque pulses and his wheel did NOT use cords although it definitely required springs. That central mechanism does not really flip over, but, rather, its ends just rock up and down and use a friction pad or pawl at the wheel's 6:00 position to move the outer wheel along. I think anyone trying to achieve PM with a single mechanism should definitely study as much about Jackson's wheel as possible.

      Interestingly, all of the PUBLIC demonstrations of Jackson's wheel were done with the insides of the wheel exposed and clearly visible to the crowds! The idea of such a demo would have terrified the hell out of Bessler!

      Delete
  9. Not really ... that's just another path that Bessler seemed to point to . "One cross-bar" .

    ReplyDelete
  10. 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10i1k12l3m6n14o14r5s17t1u6v5w4y4-3,1’1.

    ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 55 characters

      Delete
    2. It's probably just an alpha-numeric code used by blogspot.com to identify their various blogs. Its appearance with this blog entry was probably due to some glitch in their program. I wouldn't waste my time trying to "decode" it. It you want to decode something, try working on the symbols in the DT portraits and make sure you are ACTIVELY building as you do so or you might as well not waste your time on that either.

      Delete
  11. yea, I noticed that too ...???

    ReplyDelete
  12. 55 caracters............

    ReplyDelete
  13. Think you can count to get the solution somehow.........

    ReplyDelete
  14. The letters look at first to be nulls within a substitution code, but why would B, J, P, Q, X, and Z be missing? Sigh. Looks like I'll have something to play with this weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  15. .'-()-'.


    ???

    ReplyDelete
  16. John ,
    I have thought up a very interesting device I'll have you know .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      You know I've been premature at times ... and I really don't mean any harm by it ... but this time something is different .IMHO, I think there are several ways that I could make this basic concept work . I am really sorting out the essence of what this device has to be .

      Delete
    2. Bessler said that he refined it for a long time in his mind and that's more or less what I'm doing now . I have to make some choices if I'm going to build it and decide which (out of two possible so far) is a more contributing motive force .

      Delete
    3. What ever you do Chris, build a model to test it for yourself first. You and I know too well, how publishing designs just gets you nowhere.

      Good luck.

      JC

      Delete
    4. Yes , I will when I have thought about it some more . A build is the only way to go . I agree .

      Delete
  17. Primemignonite7 July 2012 at 05:44

    technoguy 6 July 2012 16:12

    @ JC

    I must have misinterpreted the "tone" of your blog entry, especially after reading a line like:

    "I now have to admit that I might be wrong about my predilection for assuming that Bessler's wheel had five mechanisms."

    Well, if it does not work with 5, then it probably won't work with 4, 3, or 2 either. I, of course, remain FIRMLY convinced that 8 was the correct number of weighted levers used in Bessler's one-directional wheels / sub wheels. However, I do remain "open" to the possibility of using as few as 6 weighted levers. If I am successful in getting a wheel with 8 weighted levers to run, then I may explore the possibility of doing the same by using only 6.

    Meanwhile, I look forward to reading more about this line:

    "A discovery only yesterday has thrown my mind into confusion because I believe I have stumbled upon the real reason for the ubiquity of the number five clues."

    This ghastly, insolent Cretin, @technorat takes every opportunity to slap and dares speak of "tone" on J.C.'s part!

    Whatever it may in-truth be, it must be insane - some kind of sociopath. Only such as this might answer for such tawdry behavior.

    James (TD)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Primemignonite7 July 2012 at 06:19

    From this unknown anonymous, self-styled source, we were offered this new gem of "wisdom":

    technoguy 6 July 2012 11:32

    Sounds like your starting to realize that your 5 mechanism wheel isn't going to be a "runner" and, most likely, can not be modified to become one! If so, then that did not surprise me. Your 5 mechanisms are, apparently, "isolated" with no interconnecting cords between them and no tensioning springs for energy / mass storage and delayed release. That violates one of the cardinal TRUTHS of the "right track" approach to replicating Bessler's wheels: "No cords plus no springs equals NO PM!"

    *************************************************

    As seen in it's first paragraph above, might anyone know from whence that quote "No cords plus no springs equals NO PM!" came? It was put like that, in quotes, by the technorat itself, and so I suppose it to have been written by Bessler or Wagner maybe, from some supposed list of "cardinal TRUTHS"?

    (As to veracity it seems to this reader somewhat suspect.)

    Once again, compliments of technorat, we are noticed by his great and high "authority", to the effect that . . .

    "Methinks, John, that it won't be too long before YOU are firmly on the "right track" along with me and a handful of others..."

    Here, with this one, one could rightly wonder: are cheek and insolence (watch out for them!) EVER to have ANY limits put-on at all??? (Probably, the sad-but-true correct answer presents it's own self?)

    Within one of the last thread's posts, technorat revealed to us all positively, that he/she/it is American!

    (Did we not already guess it, and most handily?)

    Only we Americans can be so very insolent and yet, so unaware so pridefully, and all these things done at the same time! In this art, we are unique. ('Takes one to know one.')

    Now, two most peculiar tag-team personages have come to dominate John Collins' blog. Without even a whimper from Authority, they have taken it over thoroughly and without apology.

    Must this quo of status continue-on, with these masturbators-in-type going on-and-on unchecked utterly, insulting, pronouncing on this thing here as if fact, or on that one there the same, but coming with absolutely no more authority for backing up any of their spewage than just the wordy and worthless, Ejaculate Product itself?

    (And certainly, no wheels aturning, just mouths aflapping perpetually! That part they've got pat!)

    And . . . so, so wearyingly . . . these trolls' cheap, monotone acts never change!

    It's just the same old unsupported drivel, said in new and ever-novel ways, but with always slaps to be done at the face of our esteemed Author/Moderator, John Collins!

    To them why is this necessary???

    (Yes! Only monks' patience and saints' understanding could possibly account for this going-on now, unchecked for so long a time.)

    Honestly, what might be the actual purpose of it all?

    (Here we enter the Misty Realm Of The Rhetorical, for it is obvious that it is done for their gratification alone, all this at the expense of the patien, decent others that abide the exercises of those flagrant, flaming self-manias on the loose!)

    One particular excellent chap that runs his own Forum over on BWF, tends to his matters there by having in one hand a paddle, and in the other an iron rod!

    When some too-presuming respondent gets a bit too frisky, then WHACK goes the paddle with a warning! One more bit of stepping out-of-line (and that's all it takes - I've seen it happen) then is it the rod, and that person becomes 'no longer' on that Forum!

    I don't know how one might style it other than being 'a rule by right for right', perhaps?

    Because of the extreme order and respect commanded by and for it's operator that does result, mightn't it be seen as a fair model for the emulating by others? (Just a thought.)

    James (TD)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome back, "Primemignonite (James)"

      I found your latest bout of logorrhea fascinating as usual.

      Yes, I am aware that I can sound a bit "preachy" at times when it comes to what I call the "right track" approach to solving the mystery of Bessler's wheels. That is simply because it IS the right approach and, more importantly, the ONLY approach that will work as far as Bessler's wheels are concerned (it has no application to Asa Jackson's VERY interesting wheel, however)! I do not make such an dogmatic statement lightly. It is the result of MANY thousands of hours of study, thought, and VERY hard work with regard to the design that Bessler found on that fateful day at the "House of Richters"!

      I promote this approach because I do not want to see the discussion about Bessler's wheels be the same ten years from now as it was ten years AGO! It's time to END this EMBARRASSING three century old, unbroken chain of TOTAL FAILURES. It's time for a TRULY new approach, the "right track" approach, that will, thank merciful God, FINALLY get this annoying historical mystery SOLVED ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

      I always wish everyone, especially JC, the best of luck with their latest builds / models even when I KNOW in advance that they are only setting themselves up for more failure and frustration. If nothing else, finding THE solution to Bessler's wheels will, at a minimum, put an END to all of the WASTED hours / time / money (sob!) and emotional "roller coaster riding" that passes for PM research today. Neither I nor anyone else should rest until this happens.

      IF JC had been on the "right track" ten years ago, then the content of this blog and the various free-energy fora today would most likely be quite different. Instead of the usual parade of no hope of running "wrong track" designs that only go on to litter the free-energy website landscape, we would be discussing the latest improvements that were being made to Bessler's original wheel and how US Patents on those improvements were being made one after another as REAL free-energy technology continued to evolve and was being quickly integrated into the average person's life. There would be talk of the SOON to come introduction of ACTUAL free energy home site electrical power generators and even fuelless automobiles, planes, and ships. Instead, here we are debating the meaning of the number 5!!! This would actually be HILARIOUS, if it was not so VERY SAD!

      Anyway, a big part of me is tempted to reveal the remaining 75% of the info I have on Besser's "right track" design and have not so far shared. That information, by itself, would be a major event in PMland. But, OTOH, I am VERY hesitant to do so PRIOR to being able to produce an UNdeniably WORKING (meaning glitch free) sim of his design undergoing "self motion" because of what I see happening to the work of others that have tried to do so. IF their model was a "non-runner" at the time of presentation (this was ALWAYS the case unless it was a hoax or a sim program glitch), it just became more luke warm urine to be flushed down the internet drain and I don't want that happening to what I am working on. It's really too important to suffer such an ignoble fate.

      So we must all be patient for awhile longer. In the end, the truth will finally emerge and we will know if JC's "pentagrammatic wheel" is a runner or has any hope of becoming one. So, too, Trevor's design will either be a runner or not. And, the "right track" design for Bessler's wheel I've managed to find will either be THE one or it will not be. At this point in time, I am 100% confident that it WILL prove to be THE solution that the masses of "wrong track" Bessler mobilists out there in PMland have been desperately searching for since the day that they first heard the name "Johann Bessler".

      Delete
    2. Welcome back, "Primemignonite (James)"

      I found your latest bout of logorrhea fascinating as usual.

      Yes, I am aware that I can sound a bit "preachy" at times when it comes to what I call the "right track" approach to solving the mystery of Bessler's wheels. That is simply because it IS the right approach and, more importantly, the ONLY approach that will work as far as Bessler's wheels are concerned (it has no application to Asa Jackson's VERY interesting wheel, however)! I do not make such an dogmatic statement lightly. It is the result of MANY thousands of hours of study, thought, and VERY hard work with regard to the design that Bessler found on that fateful day at the "House of Richters"!

      I promote this approach because I do not want to see the discussion about Bessler's wheels be the same ten years from now as it was ten years AGO! It's time to END this EMBARRASSING three century old, unbroken chain of TOTAL FAILURES. It's time for a TRULY new approach, the "right track" approach, that will, thank merciful God, FINALLY get this annoying historical mystery SOLVED ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

      Delete
  19. Drama is impossible to control in the blogosphere.

    The ubiquity of five in everything is itself a little dramatic; almost to the point of being questionable.
    But it must have some significance.
    What else could he have been pointing to (since John won't say what he thinks it could be)?

    5 what?

    ReplyDelete
  20. MT13

    http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_013.gif

    "... no belts or chains but each weight is separate and free ... This invention would be very good for running if ... someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight ..." Someone being the Prime Mover?

    "No cords plus no springs equals NO PM!" Looks like someone forgot to tell Bessler about the cardinal truths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can believe that Bessler KNEW the cardinal truth about the attainment of rotatry PM and that information was supposed to be revealed at the end of MT. Unfortunately, once he realized after his arrest how vulnerable he was to having his person and property seized by the state, he quickly burned and buried the illustrations that showed this cardinal truth making an OB PM gravity wheel run. It has taken almost 300 years, but we will soon know what was in that material he destroyed!

      Delete
    2. I'm not a disbeliever, I was just pointing out an alternative based on Bessler's own words. Clearly the driving principal (prime mover) has been removed or omitted from his papers. Your approach is as valid as anyone else's and the fact that you have experimental research backing you up is very positive.

      Delete
    3. The "prime mover" in ANY OB PM gravity wheel is just the energy / mass of its weights. The problem is coming up with a design that will coax them into releasing their energy / mass at a fast enough rate so that it can both maintain the imbalance of the weights' CoM AND perform useful work in the wheel's environment. Bessler's solution, obviously, was revolutionary and, once known in detail, hopefully, it can then be applied to other types of machines as well.

      Delete
    4. I see the prime mover as a separate mechanism from the OB wheel. If the wheel consists of crossbars, where a pair of weights are connected on each crossbar, then the prime mover would lift the pair of weights when they are at the 12 and 6 position (crossbar is vertical). Combine the prime mover with any of Bessler's lever/weighted wheels (such as MT9) and you have a runner. I guess this is just another way of looking at the solution. This is the path I have been working on for the last 2 years.

      Delete
    5. I should also say that my prime mover does include a single spring which is key to it's function.

      Delete
    6. "I see the prime mover as a separate mechanism from the OB wheel."

      And what moves the prime mover?! Oh, that's right, by definition a prime mover is effect without cause and can have no "higher" prime mover that moves it.

      I've never liked the term "prime mover" because, as it seems to have done with you, it "encourages" the mobilist to automatically think that there were separate and DIFFERENT mechanisms within Bessler's wheels. That is one of the MOST erroneous assumptions a Bessler mobilist can make. I know because I made it for YEARS and it led...NOWHERE!

      Instead, the "right track" approach to rationalizing the operation of Bessler's wheels postulates that each one-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's "sub wheel" contained ONLY 8 IDENTICAL "perpetual motion structures" or weighted levers with ALL 8 weights attached to them having EQUAL masses (although Bessler admitted that their masses could vary by an ounce or so without it seriously affecting wheel performance).

      During any 45 degree increment of drum rotation, 4 of the 8 weights would act as "prime movers" (that is, dropped with respect to their rim stops) while 2 of the 8 weights were "moved" (or rose with respect to their rim stops). That would leave 2 other weights which remained "idle" as they rested on their rim stops. Then, during the NEXT 45 degree increment of drum rotation, a DIFFERENT set of 6 out of the 8 weights would automatically be "recruited" to engage in this process and so on and so on throughout all 8 45 degree increments of drum rotation per complete drum rotation until ALL of the 8 weights had had a turn acting as either prime mover, moved, or idle weights.

      Delete
    7. Interesting concept you have. Thank you for providing the details. I will give it more thought.

      The 'prime mover' concept I eluded to is in fact a PM device in it's own right, but it is not a wheel, although it revolves around itself. Coupled to a larger wheel, the prime mover would have just enough energy to perform the weight shifting tasks required to create overbalance in the larger wheel so it would rotate.

      Delete
  21. "...nothing is to be accomplished with his thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle...".

    Maybe this is another statement where Bessler hid the truth. Maybe by "connectedness" Bessler meant "no connection".

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just a note : The picture becomes even clearer today .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagzTRmUBIE

      R

      Delete
  23. Welcome back, "Primemignonite (James)"

    I found your latest bout of logorrhea fascinating as usual.

    Yes, I am aware that I can sound a bit "preachy" at times when it comes to what I call the "right track" approach to solving the mystery of Bessler's wheels. That is simply because it IS the right approach and, more importantly, the ONLY approach that will work as far as Bessler's wheels are concerned (it has no application to Asa Jackson's VERY interesting wheel, however)! I do not make such an dogmatic statement lightly. It is the result of MANY thousands of hours of study, thought, and VERY hard work with regard to the design that Bessler found on that fateful day at the "House of Richters"!

    I promote this approach because I do not want to see the discussion about Bessler's wheels be the same ten years from now as it was ten years AGO! It's time to END this EMBARRASSING three century old, unbroken chain of TOTAL FAILURES. It's time for a TRULY new approach, the "right track" approach, that will, thank merciful God, FINALLY get this annoying historical mystery SOLVED ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

    I always wish everyone, especially JC, the best of luck with their latest builds / models even when I KNOW in advance that they are only setting themselves up for more failure and frustration. If nothing else, finding THE solution to Bessler's wheels will, at a minimum, put an END to all of the WASTED hours / time / money (sob!) and emotional "roller coaster riding" that passes for PM research today. Neither I nor anyone else should rest until this happens.

    IF JC had been on the "right track" ten years ago, then the content of this blog and the various free-energy fora today would most likely be quite different. Instead of the usual parade of no hope of running "wrong track" designs that only go on to litter the free-energy website landscape, we would be discussing the latest improvements that were being made to Bessler's original wheel and how US Patents on those improvements were being made one after another as REAL free-energy technology continued to evolve and was being quickly integrated into the average person's life. There would be talk of the SOON to come introduction of ACTUAL free energy home site electrical power generators and even fuelless automobiles, planes, and ships. Instead, here we are debating the meaning of the number 5!!! This would actually be HILARIOUS, if it was not so VERY SAD!

    Anyway, a big part of me is tempted to reveal the remaining 75% of the info I have on Besser's "right track" design and have not so far shared. That information, by itself, would be a major event in PMland. But, OTOH, I am VERY hesitant to do so PRIOR to being able to produce an UNdeniably WORKING (meaning glitch free) sim of his design undergoing "self motion" because of what I see happening to the work of others that have tried to do so. IF their model was a "non-runner" at the time of presentation (this was ALWAYS the case unless it was a hoax or a sim program glitch), it just became more luke warm urine to be flushed down the internet drain and I don't want that happening to what I am working on. It's really too important to suffer such an ignoble fate.

    So we must all be patient for awhile longer. In the end, the truth will finally emerge and we will know if JC's "pentagrammatic wheel" is a runner or has any hope of becoming one. So, too, Trevor's design will either be a runner or not. And, the "right track" design for Bessler's wheel I've managed to find will either be THE one or it will not be. At this point in time, I am 100% confident that it WILL prove to be THE solution that the masses of "wrong track" Bessler mobilists out there in PMland have been desperately searching for since the day that they first heard the name "Johann Bessler".

    ReplyDelete
  24. Has anyone looked into the lee-tseung lead-in theory. For those who have not, the basic premise is, if you pull or push a pendulum bob say to the right, you are imparting a horizontal component of energy equal to the horizontal force x the horizontal displacement. At the same time, a vertical component of potential energy builds up in tension of the bob string/lever equal to the weight of the bob times the vertical displacement. When the bob is released from it's pulled height, the bob energy will be equal to both the horizontal and vertical components. They (Mr. Lee and Mr. Tseung) go on to say for a real world experience, if you push someone on a swing, the swinger will come back to you with the combined energy. However, they kind of contradict themselves because they also say that thru history, engineers have overlooked this vertical energy. If the bob really comes back with the combined energy, I don't think it would be hard to overlook.

    This sounds crazy but I am in the process of building a small test station to verify the results.

    ReplyDelete
  25. hey guys... build nothing... everything you'll ever build will be just a piece of matter ocuppying space at your home... just don't do it

    The Portuguese

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had enough failed PM designs in the past to fill a garage! But, that frustrating experience thought me some important lessons. Mainly that all of the usual approaches to achieving an offset CoM of the weights within a wheel do NOT work. You MUST have an ADDITIONAL component present to maintain the imbalance of your weights. Bessler utilized spring tension which is what I am working on right now. Springs are an excellent way to temporarily store energy / mass until it is needed later to HELP raise weights and thereby maintain the OB of the wheel's CoM. The question is HOW did he do this. His method is what I call the "Secret Principle". It IS hinted at in the DT portraits, but the clues pertaining to it are the MOST obscure of all in the Bessler literature. One MUST be building / modeling constantly to find out what the exact nature of this critically important third principle is.

      Delete
    2. This broken record is getting *very* tiresome!

      Delete
    3. Ok , i will build nothing .

      Delete
  26. The right track would only be known after the fact.

    Any track is wrong if it fails. All tracks are wrong until one works.

    So to say any track is right is putting the cart before the horse.

    You won't know you've been on the right track until the end of the track.

    That's the funny thing about it.

    And why tg is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  27. or,how do you know that you are 98%on the right track?
    if you can't find those missing 2%, i can assure you that you are 100%on the wrong track

    ReplyDelete
  28. Doug wrote:

    "The right track would only be known after the fact."

    The "right track" is the somewhat meandering path one must head in to finally find the design that Bessler actually used. From the time a mobilist gets on that track, he WILL know if he is still on it and making progress based on the amount of the Bessler wheels' external performance data and the MANY "embedded" clues that he is able to rationalize. As long as he stays on that track these amounts will slowly, but CONTINUOUSLY increase. If he gets off of the "right track", then he will suddenly find his rationalizing power stopping. It's almost like that game of "hot and cold" that children play in order to direct a blindfolded volunteer to some item hidden in a room. As a "right track" Bessler mobilist, one becomes the blindfolded child and it is Bessler who calls out the words "hot" or "cold" to him from his grave!


    vincent wrote:

    "...if you can't find those missing 2%, i can assure you that you are 100% on the wrong track"

    The first things that the "right track" mobilist will discover are the "magic lever" shape and the "Connectedness Principle". These items alone can take YEARS of patient study and building / modeling to obtain and verify. Once you have them, you will then make another startling discovery: by themselves, they do NOT allow your model wheels to achieve PM! You will then be shocked and feel so duped by Bessler that you will be sorely tempted to just quit the entire quest and become a confirmed "no tracker" for the rest of your life. You may also convince yourself that Bessler was just a low class con man who, by using his clever crafting skills, had merely fooled the public and Count Karl into thinking he actually had done it just so that he and his family could live the "good life" over there in Weissenstein Castle! The high price he demanded, in full, for his "secret" was, obviously, intended to GUARANTEE that he would NEVER have to reveal it and, thus, expose his fraud! Yes, that will all seem to make complete and perfect sense!

    However, it is about now that you will notice that ALL of your previous discoveries did NOT involve springs in any way! You will suddenly realize that the final obstacle to completing your journey on the "right track" is discovering EXACTLY HOW Bessler used spring tension in his wheels. You will also then notice that there are MANY clues involving springs in the two DT portraits to which you were previously blind! At this point, weary tho' you be, you must intensify your research to unravel the remaining mystery of those spring clues. They represent the LAST 2% of your journey to the end of the "right track". Around then, some few "wrong track" mobilists will pop up and just tell you that they've already tried spring tension in their wheels and it does not work any more than just using weights by themselves. In a sense, they are right...BUT, they never applied the tensions in the same and VERY unique way that BESSLER did! And, that, ultimately, dear fellow squirrels, is the difference between BESSLER'S "runners" and THEIR "NON-runners"!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Tg, I do not misplace your theory,so far, because no final solution has bin found yet.
    But i have grave doubt about your magic lever's.I do agree that springs play an important part,let's wait end see how important they are in my latest project,it is not a wheel, or overbalanced chain,pendulums etc.If we don't try we will never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It took me a LONG time to find the "magic lever" design used by Bessler and it is a fascinating structure to behold. From looking at the MT illustrations and using 2D modeling / sim programs one might get the impression that the levers in Bessler's wheels were flat 2D structures. This is, most definitely NOT the case. Since the 48 cords within a one-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's sub wheel MUST be contained within several parallel "layers" in order to prevent cord to cord contact and the fraying this would lead to, the levers themselves are somewhat wide with interiors that are also divided into the same number of discrete parallel layers. These layers within a lever are penetrated at specific locations by steel pins that serve as the attachment points for the cords. Fortunately, all 8 levers are structurally identical to each other and the various cords can be quickly attached to each one's steel pins via the use of the locking hooks I described in a previous blog entry's comment. All of the steel attachment pins must, of course, be lubricated in order to help minimize wear of the inside surfaces of the hooks as a wheel runs.

      I'm glad to read that someone else here also thinks that springs are important. In fact, without them one might as well forget about trying to achieve PM! Unfortunately, most mobilists are not comfortable working with springs and unless they start using them, they will FOREVER be excluded from "bringing a perpetual motion to glorious completion." Such is the sad fate of the "wrong track" mobilist. Even Asa Jackson with his parametric oscillator type PM wheel recognized the importance of using spring tension for counter balancing and springs are, indeed, found in his WORKING design.

      Delete
  30. Surely there is more that one person building a PM wheel or are we all spectators exept for TG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I'm building Trevor, and I know of at least five others and I'm sure there are some I don't know about.

      JC

      Delete
  31. With a keen interest on this fascinating concept, here are some conclusions I would like to share. For a wheel to be truly PM, it MUST have these requirements :

    1) Release and storing of motion - escapement mechanism/s
    2) One-way catch valve or gate for storing of potential energy
    3) Motion / inertia
    4) Springs and cams
    5) Correct timing of each mechanism
    6) Involve a few mechanisms in synchronicity - think Ruby Goldberg

    Cheers,

    Ben

    ReplyDelete

Bessler’s Wheel, odd numbers and the Pyramids.

You might think there cannot be any connection of interest to us, between Bessler’s wheel and the pyramids, but I will explained. As many...