In the middle of the night before last, I awoke and had a revelation or perhaps a sudden inspiration. I had thought of a way to drive a gravity-wheel using a different design concept. I studied it in my mind, turning it this way and that, and I thought it looked liked it would go and was a winner... and then I fell asleep. Of course in the cold light of dawn I recalled it and thought how silly, this won't work at all! The idea that came to me was a completely different way of making Bessler's wheel work. My secret principle was irrelevant to the working of this new design and the whole thing appeared to be an utterly different configuration to the one I've been working on for the last eighteen months. But I dismissed it as unworkable, although the odd thing was that all of Bessler's clues still fitted perfectly!
Now at this point I was going to use this so-called revelation to demonstrate how easy it is to fit Bessler's clues to our preconceived ideas, misleading us and taking us up the garden path on the trail of red herring and sending us on a slow boat to China (I love mixing my metaphors!). BUT....this morning I was considering for the umpteenth time, Bessler's (and mine) obsession with the number 5 and suddenly a thought occurred to me why he felt it was so important.
This thought suddenly brought back into focus my dream from the previous night and with five mechanisms I could see how it might work after all. I need to do some tests to confirm that my idea is either useless or the key to an alternative version of his wheel - and perhaps prove a theory that crops up from time to time, that the clues that we all study, refer to two different concepts and that is why we have failed so far - but I will post more details soon.
The version I have been working on all this time has yet to prove to my satisfaction that there has to be five mechanisms, but I can see immediately why this latest concept needs five, and I will just say that this one is so simple, anyone could make it, even me!
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
This blog entry has, I think, a somewhat ominous tone to it. Whenever I read that a mobilist is starting to have dreams and revelations, it's a sure sign that his current build is NOT working and, worst of all, shows NO hope of EVER working! Now I'm starting to wonder if, indeed, we will be seeing ANY of your clue derived "pentagrammatic" wheel design BEFORE this Christmas...or EVER for that matter! Hope I'm wrong about this.
ReplyDeleteMe thinks that you are starting to have some doubts about the significance of the number 5 to the internal mechanics of Bessler's wheels. I went through that phase a long time ago and reached the conclusion that, while 5 DOES play SOME role in the numerology Bessler incorporated into his wheels, it does NOT have anything to do with the QUANTITY of separate "perpetual motion structures" he used in each one-directional wheel or one-directional "sub wheel" of a two-directional wheel.
As far as the number of discrete PM structures per one-directional wheel is concerned, the number 5 is, as you wrote, a "red herring" or what I call a "decoy clue" designed to lead the reverse engineering Bessler mobilist astray and frustrate him as much as possible. The "right track" approach I steadfastly advocate always works with 8 mechanisms per one-directional wheel. (However, interestingly enough, my latest cord count reduced "Connectedness Principle" DOES require that EACH of a one-directional wheel's 8 magic levers have EXACTLY 5 cords attached to it! What a remarkable "coincidence"!)
The topic of this entry was "Did Bessler invent two DIFFERENT designs for his gravity wheels?"
The answer, IMO, is "yes...AND no"!
Obviously, he had both a one- and a two-directional wheel design which, yes, were different as far as their dimensions and functionality were concerned. However, it is clear to me from his clues, that, no, he really only had a SINGLE "perpetual motion structure" that he used in BOTH types of wheel. This single structure consisted of his specially shaped "magic" lever with the various interconnecting cords attached to it at precise locations.
If one starts assuming that Bessler had multiple perpetual motion structures, then he might as well GIVE UP trying to make ANY sense out of the clues Bessler left since it would be nearly impossible to ever extract any meaningful information from them.
I don't think Bessler wanted that to happen. He wanted some future mobilist to determine the ONE perpetual motion structure design he found and then use 8 of them to make a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel, but Bessler intended those future rediscoveries to be as difficult and frustrating as possible to make...yet, not quite impossible to do so.
Do not fear TG. The tests failed and I'm back on course with my current build. I'll do a diagram of my idea plus some explanations of why I thought it might work. Confidence is high but execution is hard but I'll either succeed or publish all. At the moment it's difficult to tear myself away from the Olympics! Who'd have thought that this little country of 56 million could get to be third in the medal table, behind China and the USA!
ReplyDeleteJC
I like to think of the duplication of Bessler's wheels as the ULITIMATE Olympic event the winning of which is worth, satisfactionwise at least, the weight of a TON of solid 24 kt gold medals!
DeleteAlso congrats on Britain's showing at the Olympics medal table, especially since I have not heard of any of your country's athletes being kicked out the games for using "banned" substances to enhance their performances!
BTW, those 14.5 ounce "gold" medals they are handing out are only 1% gold by weight! The rest is silver and copper. Someone calculated the value of one of these "gold" medals at about $675 USD which was mostly for the SILVER it contained! If I had busted my butt for YEARS to win a GOLD medal, I would EXPECT it to be at least SOLID 18 kt gold and worth about $20,000 USD! Considering all of the money these games generate, one would think that they would not get so cheap when it came time to make those medals. It's almost an INSULT to the athlete!
Definitely more than two , there was a more than a few designs but all of them worked on the principle of parametric oscillation or the perpetual swing .
ReplyDeleteHi Ealadha,
DeleteI'm not sure I understand the principle. Is the "parametric oscillation or the perpetual swing" you are referring to a two stage oscillator?
On the descending side the pendulumm would fall downwards and also on the ascending side on the wheel the pendulumm would fall downwards . So yes it would be an oscillation . The pendulumm would be connected to storks gills in a similar way to the mt 80s .
DeleteThe number eight put on its side is the symbol for infinity !
DeleteThe bi directional mechanism would look like the mt eighties idea .
DeleteChristo has been a cookin' . Bessler's wheel , once again , not " overbalanced " in the usual sense of the word .
ReplyDeleteI started to draw out some of the types but then i realised no one would believe me , so i rolled up the drawings and threw them in the bin .
ReplyDeleteA wheel like a hamster wheel ,big enough so you can stand in it , is what you do is lean your head into the axel at about 12 o'oclock and then as you lean back you push the wheel with your foot on the rim and it flies around and then do it again when you come back around lean your head into the axel at 12 oclock , as you lean back out push the wheel with your foot and it flies around .
ReplyDeleteI was trying to draw it but i can't draw very well.
Another way of doing it , stand in the wheel with one foot at maybe 5 oclock and the other at 7 oclock , keep shifting your weight from one foot to the other which causes the wheel to rotate .
ReplyDeleteAnd they think the mechanisms are not shown in MT ! The truth is that they are shown .
Shifting your weight from foot to foot will cause the wheel to rotate back and forth if I am understanding you correctly. Or are you saying basically to start walking, with one foot starting at 5pm then as it approaches 7pm, put the other foot down at 5pm and repeat the motion, causing the wheel to continuously turn in the direction you are walking?
DeleteNo you don't walk on the wheel , your feet stay at the same postion on the wheel , you shift the weight of your body from one foot to the other .
DeletePress all your weight onto one foot and then at the right time take all your weight off that foot and bear all the weight on the other foot .
I think I get what you are talking about if you are want a pendulum type (back and forth) movement. Am I correct in this, or is the wheel supposed to go round and round in the same direction?
DeleteThe idea is to get the wheel to go round and round in the same direction by shifting your weight from one foot to the other .
DeleteThe idea is to get the wheel to go round and round in the same direction by shifting your weight from one foot to the other .
DeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteI'm continuing to make VERY slow progress with uncovering the details of the "Secret Principle" and learning more interesting things along the way. For example:
The longest cylinder of lead that Bessler could have used in the Merseburg wheel's 16 levers would have been 6 inches in length (this figure is derived from the "tightest yet still sufficiently strong enough" schematics I have developed for the wheel). Assuming the 6 inch long cylinders were solid, then, with a density for lead of 0.4092 lb / cubic inch, a cylinder with a radius of 0.5092 inch or a diameter of 1.0184 inch would have weighted exactly 4 lbs. If Bessler had decided to "round off" the radius and diameter of the weights and made the lead weights 6 inches long with a radius of exactly 0.5 inch or a diameter of exactly 1 inch, then they would only have weighted 3.8566 lbs each and the witnesses at the Merseburg wheel examination would certainly have judged them to be "about 4 lbs each". These weights would have fit confortable in the palm of one's hand and been perceived as "not very thick".
I've also come to believe that the weights Bessler used in the Merseburg wheel were SOLID with no long shafts bored through their center lines for use in mounting them on the lever ends with long bolts. That method would certainly work, but is cumbersome when it comes time to quickly removing and reinstalling the weights if the bolts pass through small holes in the ends of the lever and are secured in place with nuts. It also removes a denser material, lead, from the cylindrical weight and replaces it with a less dense metal, steel, which then results in the wheel outputting a bit less power at any drum rotation rate.
So, how were the weights mounted on the ends of the levers? I think that Bessler simply installed small screwed in or pressed in brass "knobs" (about 0.5 inch in diameter) into short holes drilled into the end surfaces of the weights which then allowed them to be easily slipped into mounting holes at the ends of the fork shaped levers. Although brass is less dense than lead, the extra volume of it protruding out of the end surface of the weight would have kept the mass of each weight close to 4 lbs. He obviously wrapped one of the Merseburg wheel weights in a hankerchief so that, aside from not being allowed to touch the ends of the weights and notice these knobs, the witnesses would also not be able to see them.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Weissenstein wheel, I am convinced that, in order to impress Karl, Bessler decided to double the outputted power of the wheel at any of its drum's rotation rates as compared to the Merseburg wheel (thus giving the Weissenstein wheel the same power output that the Merseburg wheel would have had if BOTH of its one-directional "sub wheels" were rotating in their "preferred" directions so that each would contribute its power output to that earlier two-directional wheel's TOTAL power output). This required the Weissenstein wheel's weights to have a mass that was DOUBLE that of the Merseburg wheel's weights; that is, they would have weighed 8 lbs each. To double the masses of the Weissenstein wheel's weights simply meant that the VOLUME of one of this wheel's weights needed to be double that of a weight from the Merseburg wheel.
I have a rough schematic for the Weissenstein wheel that indicates that its sixteen 8 lb cylindrical weights could have been made as large as 8 inches long which is 1.333 times as much as the length used in the Merseburg wheel. If that was the case, then, to double their masses, Bessler needed to only increase the radii and diameters of the Weissenstein wheel weights by a factor of 1.225. Thus, if the Weissenstein wheel weights were exactly 8 lbs each, then they would have had a length of 8 inches, a radius of 0.6237 inches and a diameter of 1.2473 inches. This means that the 8 lb cylindrical weights of the Weissenstein wheel needed to only be 2 inches longer and about a quarter of an inch larger in diameter in order to DOUBLE their mass and the one-directional power output of the Weissenstein wheel!
I have a preliminary estimate of the spring tension constant of the Merseburg wheel's 16 springs. I've recently determined that these springs were 1.5 inches in diameter and 6 inches in length. I now believe that their spring constant value, k, was around 12 lb / inch. That's a fairly "stiff" spring, but could be stretched several inches by a person pulling its ends away from each other as hard as he could.
In thinking the matter over, I don't believe that Bessler would have used springs with even thicker coils that had spring constants of 24 lbs / inch on the 8 lb weights of the Weissenstein wheel. That seems like a lot of trouble to go to, especially if he was making his own springs. I'm now leaning toward the belief that he used EXACTLY the same springs that he used in the Merseburg wheel, but just used TWO of them in tandem on EACH of the Weissenstein wheel's levers. That is, EACH of the 8+ inch wide Weissenstein wheel levers would simply have had two of the Merseburg wheel springs attached to it "in parallel" with one cord from each attached to two nearby locations on the lever. Thus, the Weissenstein wheel would have contained a total of 32 springs! The problem with this approach, however, is that, in any future wheels with greater power that he might have constructed, he would have needed to add an additional spring and its cord for every extra 4 lbs of mass in its weights. Thus, if he was to construct a two-directional wheel using 16 lb weights, he would need to use 4 Merseburg wheel type springs on each of its 16 levers for a total of 64 springs!
I have seen it with skakeboarders , they shift their weight from one side of the skateboard to the other when skateboarding in a tunnel and they go around 360 degrees .
ReplyDeleteThe thing about the pulleys and cords was that all the weight was going onto one of the pulley and cords and then onto the other and the rest was history .
ReplyDeleteJohn, your question "Did Bessler invent two different designs for his gravity-wheels?" provides additional 'food for thought', no doubt.
ReplyDeleteI think it all helps us sort out the precious little wheat from the plethorous chafe; it is a necessary process that will, in-the-sum, be only of productive utility.
How could that be not good?
******************************************************************************
"DRIVE the self-proud and despicable Vampiric Creature O-U-T of this temple!"
******************************************************************************
PARTIAL QUOTE:
technoguy 7 August 2012 18:05
"PART I:
I'm continuing to make VERY slow progress . . ."
END QUOTE
Now, of all the utterances ever made by our resident, arrogant, secret troll, THIS one can be believed!
And then, after that refreshing introduction of doubtless sheer truth, comes surely the most dreaded-inevitable
". . . For example."
and then the OCEAN OF DIARRHEA of tiresome words and cracked-pot theorizing ensues!
To the ranks of we, the endlessly put-upon by this shameless, loathsome talker, the one Great Question remains: are we EVER to be rid of him/her/it truly?
(Truly, indeed. If he/she/it were to devote more creature time to the building of his/hers/it's impossible air castles, then something of one or another might actually promise to move, of it's very own accord, but no, NO! Rather, we get lectures and advice from some dark, self-admiring aether of mystery, an assault of shameless outrage and preachiness gone-riot, mouth scheist that just goes on, and on, and on ad infinitum! What did we do so as to deserve such a hell of useless, pushy words?)
"Look ad ME! Look at ME! Of ALL am I NOT wondrous???" - so queried self-loving Satan while shaking his fist at the Heavens.
Let us all cross our fingers that better, less troubled and put-upon days will soon be ours; the foulness of this present situation, being RENDERED finally.
And also let us consider possibly that miracles CAN happen for, after all, Bessler's Wheel DID turn, did it not?
All the best(s)
James
****************************************************************************
"DRIVE the self-proud and despicable Vampiric Creature OUT of this temple!"
****************************************************************************
"I'm continuing to make VERY slow progress . . ."
DeleteConsidering the DECADES during which I made ZERO progress, this is actually something to celebrate! I certainly wish I was farther along the "right track" than I am now, but 98% is far better than, say, 50%, 60%, or 70%.
"...and then the OCEAN OF DIARRHEA of tiresome words and cracked-pot theorizing ensues!"
You and others can rest WELL assured that EVERYTHING I post here has been given MUCH thought by me and represents my BEST current thinking concerning Bessler's secret wheel mechanism. Even so, occasionally I will be wrong (that seems to be happening a lot less frequently now than when I started on the "right track" several years ago!) and I will always promptly admit it as I did when I realized that I could reduce the cord count requirements of my original "Connectedness Principle" from 48 to 24 cords.
As I've mentioned before, the "right track" approach to solving the Bessler wheel mystery is NOT a straight path. It has many twists and turns that the reverse engineering Bessler mobilist must find and negotiate before he makes it to a most wonderful final destination: a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel. Bessler intended it to be so. He has set the rules and we can only follow them if we SERIOUSLY want to obtain that prize that he continues to dangle in front of us from his grave.
I see no differance between an over-toppling wheel and and a bi-directional wheel because surely it can topple both ways.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there would be enough space for two seperate mechanisms besides, while the one is going forwards,the other would have to go backwards and there would be a conflict.
If you saw the schematic I have for the Merseburg wheel, then you would immediately realize that, indeed, there is enough room within it's 14.25 thick drum (my estimate) to place TWO side by side one-directional sub wheels.
DeleteThere is also no problem with the sub wheel undergoing "retrograde" rotation interfering with the offset CoM of the active sub wheel's weights as long as the CoM of the retrograde turning sub wheel's 8 weights is kept at the center of the axle. This happens automatically when either sub wheel is assisted by a hand start to complete one retrograde rotation.
To: All ,
ReplyDeleteHow many times during your fumbling ( because we are just really fumbling ) has someone saw something that really stands out to a discerning mind to work ? I dunno why but the last couple days have been really annoying for me . I came up with at least 10 different concepts lately and I just shred them like so much worthless paper ( digital you know ;) ) and throw them in the Blender ( my software ) . Anyway , the thing is just a few moments ago I actually made what I consider to be a very promising discovery ! I think fellows I may have just taken this Bessler thing to a whole 'nother level . I won't waste you time with B.S. , I know how busy you must be ! Suffice to say John if I were to show you this particular design you would probably say that it's not Bessler's and to that I'd probably have to say that you are most definitely correct . It's all mine !
The mechanisms can also be mounted along the length of an axle if there is not enough room .
ReplyDeleteI am so sick of some of you guys . If you had any details about the " mechanism " you wouldn't be here spouting off vague comments like the above ...
ReplyDeleteyou'd be building it ! Get a life .
To answer the original question , yes , two different designs , one slightly more powerful . I even resume to know what the differences were ;) .
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've seen so far, Bessler's secret wheel mechanics relied upon VERY precise counterbalancing of the weighted levers whose pivots were located between the 9:00 and 3:00 positions of a CW rotating drum. I'm now starting to realize that the delicate counterbalancing involved was so precise that it took merely the swinging of a SINGLE weighed lever, the one whose pivot was moving between 7:30 and 9:00, to lift ALL of the weighted levers moving between 9:00 and 3:00 closer to their rim stops so as to keep the CoM of all of the weights from swinging under the "punctum quietus" during drum rotation! I can assure everyone that this is NO easy task!
ReplyDeleteAll of this lever motion was precisely "coordinated" by a set of interconnecting cords between the levers and "assisted" by a set of stretched springs that were attached between the 8 levers and 8 cross pieces that were strategically located between the various pairs of parallel radial drum supports. Yes, the design WAS simple on one level, but VERY complex on another in terms of the degree of precision that was incorporated into the design of a "magic" lever and into the adjusting the spring tension acting on it.
If someone wants to find this "right track" design of Bessler's, he needs to be CONSTANTLY building/modeling while also, MOST IMPORTANTLY, studying EVERY aspect of those TWO DT portraits, preferably DAILY. Practically every angle, ratio, line, point, and association of parts in them has SOME relevance to the WORKING design that Bessler found and will serve to guide one in his constructions. IF a reverse engineering Bessler mobilist is NOT studying these protraits ASSIDUOUSLY, then he is only kidding himself if he thinks he will EVER find the secret of Bessler's wheels. He might as well not even bother to waste any more time on the subject!
How long will it take you to find Bessler's "right track" design, you might wonder. It took Bessler a decade and, IIRC, about 300 tries. With the general description of the "right track" approach I've discussed on this blog in the previous months AND the use of simulation software, the SERIOUS Bessler mobilist MIGHT be able to do it in, say, two years after the construction of several hundred models. But, even then he will still need to have a fair degree of luck.
Checking through some of my old models, I found one (that I called "excess10-6") that always had its center of mass well past the centerline on the descending side. In fact it always had 18 weights on the descending side and only 6 on the ascending side. It didn't turn though. To turn even slightly, the COM itself would have to fall, and then (how?) be raised again, etc.
ReplyDeleteIF it ALWAYS kept 3 times as much weight mass on the descending side as on the ascending side, then, since it did not work, there MUST have been a "hidden" COUNTER torque present in the mechanism that was EXACTLY cancelling out the driving torque that the imbalance was creating. In other words, 100% of the outputted energy / mass of your array of weights was being utilized to instantaneously reset the weights' configuration and none was leftover to accelerate the wheel or perform "outside" work. I occasionally see such designs and they have led many a mobilist down a long and futile "wrong track" (I speak from PERSONAL experience!).
Delete"To turn even slightly, the COM itself would have to fall, and then (how?) be raised again, etc."
NOT exactly true. A wheel WILL turn continuously if its weights' CoM RISES just as fast as the rotating wheel would make it DROP. In such a case, despite the continuous rotation of the wheel, the CoM remains "floating" at a certain location on the wheel's descending side. How to achieve this effect? Simple. Do what Bessler did!
Because of the high efficiency of the "right track" OB PM gravity wheel design used by Bessler, only a PORTION of his weights' outputted energy/mass needed to be tapped in order to reset the wheel's configuration of weighted levers throughout any increment of drum rotation. The resulting resetting action was smooth and continuous and always kept the CoM of his wheels' weights within a very "tight" region on their drum's descending sides. The remaining portion of energy/mass not used for this purpose was then available to accelerate all of the structures of the wheel or be transferred to outside machinery in order to operate them.
The Bessler mobilist should be "wary" of ANY design that has "large" horizontal displacements of the CoM of its weights onto a wheel's descending side or in which the shifting only occurs at certain instances during an increment of wheel rotation. Needless to say, do NOT waste five seconds with ANY design that relies upon "impacts" for its motion!
See http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/patents.htm (scroll about halfway down the page to the device by Pierre Richard, 1858.) This wheel isn't the same as my "excess10-6," but it fails for the same reason, i.e. the sum of weight times vertical displacement is the same for the ascending weights as for the descending weights, (over any given time interval) even though there are always more weights on the descending side.
DeleteJohn ,
ReplyDeleteYour chosen position as a Bessler advocate will be rewarded . I can promise you that without reserve . All my effort has now sprang fruit . And I'd like to thank you for all you did to get me where I am right now . I know that you wish it was to be you who solved this thing , but many times I've noticed you wish that " someone " would . Let me ask you this : Would something " simple stupid " suffice ?
All the Best ,
Todd W.
Also , too bad Bessler never sold his invention . Some damage can never be undone . People who spoke against Bessler and people who still speak against the possibility of PERPETUAL MOTION are about to get a " wake up call " in the worst way you can imagine ... because I'm a nobody , and yet I have the answer . I know some egos are gonna suffer and all I can say to that is " you should have tried harder , thought longer , cared more , not been so " full of yourself " , believed the good man Bessler , ate drink and slept this subject like I have for years , day after day and should have taught yourself to animate I suppose .
DeleteSincerely ,
Todd W.
Congrats Cristo... You know the answer AGAIN! Your an idiot.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're illiterate . You meant " you're an idiot " .
DeleteHear, hear Anon. You would expect he'd get it right eventually by the law of averages, but it aint gonna happen!
ReplyDeleteAlready has my friend .
DeleteAnonymous , hmmm, should I give a crap what someone who has the same name as fifty others says ?
DeletePardon my French but what the hell is going on here. Chris says he found a solution. We should all be dancing in the streets, but no, we have to belittle, name call, and dismiss anyone that makes this claim. Sure Chris sometimes writes in a euphoric manner out of confidence that he has finally done it. I bet when anyone here finds the solution, they will most certainly do the same thing. It is one of the most important discoveries this world will possibly ever see and could change our very way of life. If he wants to boast and brag, it's ok with me. When you do it, I will support you too. Remember, we are all in this together. Rick
DeleteI really do have the solution . Thank you for bringing us back to reality with the above view . I know I have said it before . It's just something that has happened over and over . I am not usually like this . This thing has really changed me since I started it . Unlike most everyone this is all I have concerned myself with pretty much for years . So when these guys say those things it's only expected . I know that nobody is gonna take my word for it . They don't understand what it means to me ... only whether or not they are gonna somehow get some benefit from it . Yes , remind them that we do need support . It doesn't help to bash someone who is trying harder than you , especially anonymously .
DeleteWe talk much about the various "principles" that Bessler's wheels employed such as the "Preponderance", "Connectedness", and "Secret" principles. However, I'm now starting to think about what was happening inside of Bessler's wheels as consisting of only THREE distinct ACTIONS which were occuring SIMULTANEOUSLY during drum rotation.
ReplyDeleteThe first of these actions was the STRETCHING of the lever return springs which occured as a lever passed the 6:00 position of a CW rotating drum. This action was followed by the SHIFTING action caused by a SINGLE weighted lever as it approached the drum's 9:00 position and made ALL of the remaining CAREFULLY coordinated ACTIVE levers whose pivots were located between 9:00 and 3:00 begin moving their end mounted weights closer to their rim stops (the weights only making final contact at 3:00). There was also the CONTRACTION action taking place amongst ALL of those 9:00 to 3:00 levers as the return springs attached to them relaxed, released their previously stored energy / mass, and SLOWLY returned to their original UNSTRETCHED lengths. (I had previously concluded that the levers were under spring tension when their end weights rested against their rim stops. I am now having some second thoughts about this detail.)
So, there we have it, the three SIMULTANEOUSLY occurring actions required to make a WORKING Bessler type OB PM gravity wheel: lever return spring STRETCHING, active weighted lever SHIFTING, and lever return spring CONTRACTION. IF one can work out the details of HOW Bessler incorporated these three basic actions into his wheels, then he will find the SAME mechanism that Bessler found and the mystery will, at long last, finally be SOLVED!
GENIUS .
DeleteThank you kindly for your short response, BUT it was Johann Bessler who was the REAL genius! ALL of the conclusions I've reached are due SOLELY to the MANY clues HE left us. Without them, I would just be another "wrong track" mobilist desperate for results...ANY results!
DeleteRICK, With all due respect, Chris claims to have discovered the secret every other week! No mater how many times he says it's over, his girlfriend won't be singing anytime soon!
ReplyDeleteChris, is somewhat in the same situation that the "little boy who cried wolf" found himself in. He's had so many previous ideas recently in fairly rapid fire order that he was convinced were IT, that, should the REAL IT have finally come along for him THIS time (and I certainly hope it has), then everyone will, quite naturally, just dismiss it as yet another false alarm.
DeleteI know how easy it is to get "all fired up" over a sketch or animation, that looks, at first glance, like it HAS to work. Been there MANY more times than I care to admit. The ultimate reality check, however, of anyone's latest "can't fail" design comes when it is actually built / modeled and finally given a critical test of its workability which, basically, means unleashing it and letting gravity start transferring energy / mass between its various components. As far as I am aware, only TWO mobilists throughout ALL of recorded human history have ever had designs that passed that final reality check which means that such an occurrence is, indeed, very, VERY rare!
So, at this point in time I can only wish Chris well and hope that he manages to build a working model or, at a minimum, publishes the design so that others can evaluate it, especially with a reliable computer model.
I have all the computer model I require . It's time to build the thing and show people what Bessler was talking about . I have nowhere else to go with this . I have reached the end of the line . I just can suddenly see what everyone's comparative realities are in this situation . Like when you become famous you realize that the famous are just regular people . I HAVE GOTTEN EXCITED OVER MY IDEAS IN THE PAST ! YES . Must I forever be brought down ? I try to share my excitement but you are all just too busy pretending to be some kind of damn scientist/mathematicians .
DeleteWith all due respect you have no f875ing clue who I am and what I may or may not know and also I don't know who you are and don't wanna know . Considering this is pretty serious business ... I have done my part to make it resemble a circus but that's over now . Move on . I have ... I always do . You people act like someone owes you something personally , in the end to be a better person than who you think you are . Nobody is talking
ReplyDeletecont... about what may or may not be imaginary codes , several who have the nerve to claim specific details , by occult practices (or holding their breath til they're blue in the face . ( TG should fill his wheel with HOT AIR ) .... i mean it goes on and on and on , And some of you aren't doing ANYTHING except stopping by for an occasional STAB in the heart ! The uppers are the real trolls . Fresh out of ideas and lacking enthusiasm... I got a resounding " your best bet is to post the device " ... from one of them . But this is no joke , like the man already said ... we are talking about something valuable and something that has been in the public domain for a very long time . Bessler said it all already . And he kept his mouth shut and let everyone else play the loud-mouthed fool .
Delete"TG should fill his wheel with HOT AIR"
DeleteActually, if the clues Bessler left suggested that, then I would be doing it right now! LOL! Instead all I see in his clues are weighted levers, pivots, cords, and springs. Materialwise, Bessler's wheels were VERY simple. OTOH, component configurationwise, they were VERY CLEVER!
Very good short reply . The thing is TG ... straight from me to you ... whatever others may have said in the past or not and no matter what anyone says or thinks ... I have IT man . I understand it . I have a " clue " . I can build it , I know how to proceed . I am sure . And the only thing that I feel when people attack me is how I have thought about his so much and still , all anyone can say is " you cried wolf " ... I did a LOT more than that . The crying on the internet was the " infrequent " aspect of what I've been doing .
DeleteChris, I REALLY do hope you have IT or ANY working design for that matter. When I said you were like "the little boy that cried wolf" I only meant that you have had a series of false starts in the past and, because of that, any present or future claims of having IT you make will tend to be automatically and quickly discounted unless YOU can provide ACCEPTABLE proof of those claims. The difference between you and that proverbial little boy, of course, is that he was DELIBERATELY lying to the townsfolk whereas you actually believed you had IT in the past and do now. Thus, the analogy was not perfect.
DeleteAs with all things, time will tell what the reality of your present claim is. IF you have IT, then it will lead to something REAL and others will eventually mostly acknowledge it. IF you don't have IT, then it will lead to nothing. IF that happens, then, perhaps, in the future you will keep a tighter rein on any claims you make. You may have noticed that I do not claim to have IT yet, but rather just say that I feel I am getting closer or that I am 98% of the way there. Yes, I'm VERY excited based on what my "right track" models are doing, but I don't want to mislead anybody about the extent of their functionality and open myself up to future and justly deserved criticism.
Ohboy,..Here we go again!
ReplyDeleteChris has also in the past claimed to know how Bessler built his wheel but didn't know how it worked! LOL. As far as not knowing who you are Chris, wasn't that you in the mug shot that was posted on Besslerwheel.com?
ReplyDeleteIt could have been but I wasn't aware of it . I just wish to end all this by removing myself from exposure to all of you who are , undeniably up to no good .
DeleteMy opinion is , based on a completely unbiased point of view , that there is nothing good that has been added to this story , by anyone . Bessler alone was trying to be good . What is the point of what you say ? Are you trying to help someone in some kind of sick ,twisted way ?
ReplyDeleteHating , it seems can be improved with practice . Keep trying , you'll get it right eventually .
ReplyDeleteI know how to resolve all of this . Build a wheel and I will build one also , based on what we each know about Bessler's device . I know that yours will consist of an empty drum .
ReplyDeleteI would venture to say that Chris has had some hard times in his life and experiencing some real joy at his accomplishments. If he is wrong, well then I wait for his next discovery. I would rather have that then have him give up and go away. Plus I find his writings sometimes amusing. Don’t we all want to feel the way he is feeling right now. I have, and I almost made a major fool of myself a few days ago. I actually had entered all the text in the Reply box and was ready to click the Publish button, but at the last second I deleted everything. I just wasn’t ready to let the secret out yet. Well later that night after doing some more work, my euphoria turned to disappointment ‘again’. So I’ll keep trudging along with the rest of you.
ReplyDeleteDo any of you do this … you get an email that gets your blood boiling, you type up the response, then delete it in the end because you don’t want to make someone else mad or unhappy. It’s a way of venting and letting your emotions out. It works for me. Just as we all look different, so is the way we express ourselves. Human nature, it really isn’t anything more than that.
I respect each and everyone one of you for all the time and effort you put into this endeavor. How much have we all given up in terms of family life to work on this damn wheel. It makes me sick sometimes when I look at my son and see how big he is getting and I think how much more time I could have spent with him. I think of Docfeelsgood who spent much of his later life trying to resurrect the “Pop Keenie” wheel, and he went to his grave with his work unfinished. Lets not even get into what J.C. has done. We need each other, for support, and for ideas, to get this thing done.
Chris has made monumental strides in communicating his ideas. He recently shared a major invention with us. What else can we ask of him. Well I guess I hope he can find a way to continue sharing his ideas with us in a way that does not give away any secrets he does not want to reveal. I for one want to figure it out myself. That doesn't mean I won’t turn away any help I can get to keep me from going in the wrong direction.
Rick
I agree enthusiasm is VERY good to have. But, IMO, TOO much enthusiasm can lead to one being even MORE devastated should his recent build / model turn into just another failure (which, unfortunately, tends to be the RULE rather than the exception). I try to keep the highs and lows of that mobilist's emotional "roller coaster ride" that I'm on from becoming excessive. Although I'm getting closer to that finally replication of Bessler's wheel design that I seek, it's much safer for me in the long run to think of myself as, perhaps, 50 to 100 modifications away instead of only 1 or 2 away. That gives me a more objective perspective on this whole game. Sure, I might actually be only 1 or 2 modifications away, but I'm not counting on it.
Delete"That doesn't mean I won’t turn away any help I can get to keep me from going in the wrong direction."
Excellent! Another potential candidate getting ready to finally switch over to the "right track" approach!
Well, I have some good news to report.
ReplyDeleteLast night, during a truly marathon clue analysis session, I suddenly was able to finally obtain CORRECT interpretations of several clues in the DT portraits which, previously, had defied all attempts by me to do so. As a result of the "illumination" created by this additional information, I think that I can now justifiably claim to be 99% of the way down the "right track" to final success!
Some of these clues required me to ADD an additional set of 8 cords to my previously lowered 8 weighted lever cord count of 24 cords and thereby raise the total number to 32 cords (yes, I know that 32 = 3 + 2 = 5, Bessler's "favorite" number again!). At first I did not want to do this because I was trying to make my cord count as low as possible so that critics would not be able to object that the design was "too complicated" and, therefore, could not have been the "so simple a carpenter's boy could..." design that Karl saw.
However, the clues INSISTED that I add the extra cords and to also attach them to a previously UNKNOWN to me point within my "magic" lever. I hesitated because these extra 8 cords seemed totally superfluous to me as did their extra lever attachment points, but in the end I decided to give it a try.
Incredibly, I found out that the extra cords actually play a VERY important role in smoothing out the shifting of the weighted levers during drum rotation and keep the CoM of the 8 weights "floating" within an even "tighter" region of space on the drum's descending side!
Once again, I have learned that when the Master speaks, I MUST just quiet my mind down, listen, and OBEY if I want to get closer to the reward he has promised!
Being a "right tracker" is tough. I have to hand it to you TG on figuring out all those hidden clues. If Bessler's wheel is the only approach, then yes, I'm all for being a right tracker. However, I have been working on a few designs that are similar but different than anything in MT, so I guess that makes me a "wrong tracker". I'm ok with that. For all you right trackers out there, I hope Bessler's clues are not all false to keep everyone running in circles. Now wouldn't that be hilarious ... Rick
ReplyDeleteBeing a "wrong tracker" is not necessarily a bad thing. One can be a "wrong tracker" as far as finding THE design that Bessler found is concerned, but be a "right tracker" for some OTHER workable design as was Asa Jackson. However, the worst situation one can find himself in is to be a "wrong tracker" as far as obtaining ANY kind of working design is concerned! I lump the "inertial drive", "impact", and "rolling sphere weight" mobilists into that NO HOPE catagory.
DeleteYes, decoding Bessler's clues can be difficult, especially his DT portrait clues which are TRULY the key to duplicating his wheels. Those portraits are some of the most detailed ever made in the history of artwork and are, literally, LOADED with clues which are mostly mathematical in nature. One must REALLY be "into" this subject in order to even begin to make any sense of them. Fortunately, I am and could, literally, write a sizable volume on just the correct interpretations of the symbols in those two portraits alone!
Watch the cords ...
Deletehttp://losttransmission1.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/tangled_in_wire.jpg
PART I:
DeleteHahaha! Yes, Anonymous 18:53, I was starting to feel like that with my previous 48 cords per one-directional wheel and 96 cords per two-directional Bessler wheels! I find 32 cords seems to be ideal for the 8 weighted lever one-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's one-directional "sub wheel"; not too high and not too low, but just right. That means only a total of 64 cords for the TWO one-directional sub wheels of a two-directional wheel, a 33.333% reduction from my original 96 cord count.
The "revised" Connectedness Principle I am working with now also places ALL of a wheel's cords nearer to the drum's outer rim and this has many advantages.
For example, it means that, should one of the cords have broken while a wheel was in operation during a public demonstration, Bessler needed only to stop the wheel and then reach in through ONE of its drum's side "inspection holes" to make a quick repair (which meant merely UNhooking the two pieces of loose cord from the points on the levers that they were attached to and replacing them with a single piece of cord of the correct length). With my previous design, he might have had to open up two or more holes on one side of the axle in order to be able to pass a replacement cord across a larger expanse of the drum's interior in order to interconnect weighted levers that were not immediately adjacent to each other, a time consuming and undesirable thing to do when his PAYING customers were standing inside a cramped room waiting to see a demonstration. As all successful entertainers know, "The show must go on!" otherwise you frustrate your audience and, worst of all, are expected to return their money!
I'm still trying to determine the optimum way that Bessler would have oriented the plane of his wheels' drums when giving a public demonstration inside of a small room. So far, for the Merseburg wheel, I think that the best way to do it would have been to have placed railing across the room near the entrance door that would restricted members of the public from directly viewing the face of the drum from which the longest section of axle protruded. This side of the drum would have faced away from end of the room with the entrance where the visitors were kept behind the railing and can be referred to as the "back" face.
PART II:
DeleteIt would have been the cloth covering of that hidden back face which contained the drum's 8 cloth patch covered inspection holes which were located between the 8 radial drum support members there. Thus, those viewing the other exposed face, the "front" face, would only have seen dark, oiled cloth with no patches covering inspection holes. I don't think Bessler would have wanted to risk a patch coming loose during a demonstration and visitors being able to get a glimpse of his "magic" levers and the cords attached to them as the drum was in rotation. THAT would have been revealing WAY to much for the price of admission! It is primarily for these reasons that I think, contrary to the impression that one gets from viewing the Merseburg wheel illustrations, that members of the public were NOT allowed to directly view the wheel from any direction PERPENDICULAR to its axle and they certainly would not have been allowed to directly view the back side of the drum at any time. (These restrictions, however, were probably always waived in the case of rich potential buyers interested in the wheel although I'm sure Bessler would always have been present during any of their inspections to make sure they did not get close to an inspection hole!)
Possibly, however, he might have had one small patch covered hole in the cloth of the front face of the drum near the axle so that an occasional skeptic could reach up through this hole in order to "grope" the giant wheel's axle and thereby prove to himself (and the rest of the audience) that there was nothing attached to it. His hand would have been well away from any other of the drum's internal cords or levers.
In the case of the Merseburg wheel, the wheel would probably not have been in the exact center of the room, but moved over closer to a nearby window. That would have allowed the public to only view PART of the wheel's back axle from an angle so they could at least see the stamping mill being operated by the axle studs and also see the pendulum there swinging counter to the one attached to the shorter front side axle. Bessler would thus have been able to uncover an inspection hole for a quick repair on that side without having to worry about anyone seeing what he was doing as long as they stayed behind the railing. A nearby window's light would help illuminate the wheel during the daytime.
Proximity to the window would also have made demonstrations of the wheel's ability use its angular momentum to "quickly" hoist (at a rate of about 10 inches per second!) heavy weights that were suspended from a pulley outside of the window easier to perform because it would have shortened the amount of rope that stretched from the window to the pulley under the front face side's axle. (The fact that demonstrations of this type were done with the Merseburg wheel indicates that it was constructed on the SECOND floor of a dwelling.)
Poor Chris Wilson, nobody believes you, boo hoo... You're embarrassing yourself, it's pathetic.
ReplyDelete"I've got the secret, and if you don't all bow down to me I'll take my toys away".
Just SHUT UP and BUILD the thing. You don't have the solution, as simple as that.
I've been rethinking some of the things I said in my last two part comment above and am wondering if I could be wrong about one detail.
ReplyDeleteTo tell everyone the truth, if I was going to pay Bessler to see a demo of one of his wheels, then I think I would prefer to be able to see a SIDE view of it; that is, to view it perpendicular to the length of its axle. That would certainly give a better view of what was going on with the stamping mill and, probably most importantly, if the rope was attached to the other end of the axle for a "quick" lift of a load outside the window, then the rope would not have to pass close to the railing where the patrons might be located.
But, how to maintain the security of the wheel's internal mechanics should one of its inspection hole cloth patches come undone while the drum was in motion?
Maybe Bessler just made sure that this could not happen. Maybe each patch was held in place by, say, six large pins so that, should one fail, the others would still keep the patch in place. Besides, Bessler would probably ALWAYS be present during any public demonstration and, if a patch really came completely off, he would just let the drum keep spinning so that no one would be able to see inside of the rapidly moving opening. Also, when he became aware of a problem with a patch, he could just hustle everyone out of the room or, perhaps, pull a large curtain across to block everyone's view of the drum.
I still think the best place to put the inspection holes would have been on the side of the drum that the stampling mill was located.
Next, I'm wondering how, if the inspection holes were on the side of the drum facing away from window, did Bessler get enough light into its darkened interior to see which of its cords had broken?
Maybe he had the early 18th century equivalent of a "trouble light" which would have been a specially made oil lamp that he could have hung inside of the drum to illuminate its components during a repair. IF he did use such a system, then God forbid if it detached, fell, and somehow caught fire inside of the drum! That would have been a disaster, but with a properly designed lamp using an enclosed wick and a shatter proof metal reserve tank to hold the flammable oil, this possibility could have been minimized. He certainly would not have used a candle with an open flame.
Okay, so his Merseburg wheel is spinning merrily along and, all of a sudden, a cord snaps, then what?
Interestingly, from studying the "right track" design for this wheel that I am now working on, I'm convinced that, of each of the two-directional wheel's one-directional sub wheel's 32 cords, only 8 of the cords would be critical to the operation of that sub wheel. That is, IF only ONE of those 8 cords broke, it would create an excessive imbalance that would bring that sub wheel to a stop. However, of that sub wheel's other 24 cords, it might actually be possible for SEVERAL of them to break and for the wheel to continue operating! Also, during a demonstration, should ONE of the Merseburg wheel's sub wheel's 8 critical ropes break, then Bessler could always just continue the demonstration using the other one-directional sub wheel. To restore two-directional functionality to the wheel again, he would later quickly replace the broken cord between viewing times.
If a critical cord broke, then how did Bessler know which patch to open in order to reach the affected levers and replace the cord?
Most likely, he could tell by noting what side of an excessively imbalanced drum sank toward the floor. The broken cord and affected levers would be located diametrically opposite that side.