Thursday, 2 August 2012

Newton's gravity shield and the potential for inertial thrust in Bessler's Wheel

People may recall that in my biography of Johann Bessler, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?", I described a paper from Sir Isaac Newton's notebook in which he speculates that "gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down. Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by reflecting or refracting ye, if so a perpetual motion may bee made one of these two ways." Adjacent to these words, Newton added two sketches of perpetual motion powered by the 'flux of the gravitational stream'.  I included this information in support of my argument that gravity could ultimately be used as a source of energy - if it was good enough for Newton then it was good enough for me.

"The term gravitational shielding refers to a hypothetical process of shielding an object from the influence of a gravitational field. Such processes, if they existed, would have the effect of reducing the weight of an object.  However experimental evidence to date indicates that no such effect exists. Gravitational shielding is considered to be a violation of the equivalence principle and therefore inconsistent with both Newtonian theory and general relativity."  Thanks to wikipedia again.

There is an irony in the last sentence of the above paragrah, 'gravitational shielding ....... is inconsistent with both Newtonian theory and general relativity,' seeing that Newton himself suggested that gravity shielding might be possible.

I was suprised to discover that research into this concept continues. The consensus view of the scientific community is that gravitational shielding does not exist, but there have been occasional investigations into this topic, such as those funded in 1999 by NASA.  Scientists Ning Li and D.G. Torr at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, wrote several papers in major journals on the relationship between superconductors and gravitation. And there are the "gravity shielding” experiments at Tampere University in Finland carried out by Dr. Podkletnov.

This of course has nothing to do with my own suggestion that a successful Bessler's wheel might be adapted and driven to provide directional, or inertial thrust ...sideways and upwards!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

52 comments:

  1. A spring can be used to shield gravity . They don't even know anything .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting that you mention inertial thrust, John. At a recent conference reported in Infinite Energy magazine, a Boeing engineer talked about what the reporters interpreted as true inertial propulsion for spacecraft (but I think it might have been only the already-known "control moment gyroscope," or CMG).

    CMG's are interesting in themselves; a single-gimbal CMG can deliver an output torque of up to one thousand times the input torque given to it. To me, this acknowledged "torque amplification" is just one step away from free energy.

    References: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/SPESIF.pdf and http://staff.aist.go.jp/kurokawa-h/CMGpaper97.pdf (see Table 2-1 of this).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric Laithwaite invented an inertial propulsion for spacecraft, must have been over 20 years ago, you can see it on the documentary that was made about him (in the 'Heretic' series), you may be able to find it on the internet somewhere. He had a model of it made from Meccano, to demonstrate how it works. He said it didn't contravene any of Newton's laws, and would therefore satisfy the scientific establishment.

      Delete
    2. I'd agree that it could well be worthwhile for orthodox science to look further into Laithwaite's work.

      Delete
  3. I think that if my version of Bessler's wheel works, it should be possible to use the basic principle which I'm using, to produce a reactionless drive or inertial thrust. All Bessler's wheel does is convert downwards force into rotational motion. Reversing the sequence of events may produce an upwards or outwards linear force.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're looking forward to anything you can publish on this, John!

      Delete
    2. So technically it might be possible to make an 'anti gravity' wheel, which, if spun fast enough by a motor, would lift itself off the ground.

      Delete
    3. That was what I was thinking, but who knows?

      JC

      Delete
    4. If a Bessler wheel was spun fast enough by a motor attached to its axle, then the only thing that would happen is that the lever weights, due to the CF acting on them, would swing out radially away from the axle and become "pinned" against their rim stops. At that point, the CoM of the weights would be located at the center of the axle. There would be NO NET directional forces present that would make the wheel start to levitate or do anything else for that matter.

      The risk, of course, in doing a stunt like this, however, is that the CF acting on the weights might put so much stress on the lever pivots that they would start to fail and the levers would begin to detach from their brass bearings in the drum radial drum supports. If some of the weights stayed in place while others detached and laid against the inner surface of the periphery, then this would cause the CoM of all of the weights to become offset from the center of the axle. Forcing an imbalanced system like this to rotate rapidly would also cause it to violently wobble. In fact, it might be wobbling so badly that the axle's end pivots could actually unseat themselves from the upright supports' bearings! Were this to happen, the drum would fall to the floor and, due to its high spin and angular momentum, most likely tear itself apart!

      Why do some have a need to make inertial drives and anti-gravity devices out of Bessler's wheels? Isn't JUST being an OB PM gravity wheel sufficient enough by itself?!

      Delete
  4. John forgive me,but I cannot go with Newtons remark about gravity rays.
    Logically they would have to come from all directions and that would mean that they would cancel their effect out.
    People usually adopt this approach because cannot conceive that a force such as gravity can pull at a distance.
    I believe that gravity,even enertia is electrical and in some way related to magnetism.
    I am hoping that one day soon they will unify all these forces.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nothing to forgive Trevor, I agree completely. I just think it's interesting that Newton speculated on the possibility of gravity shielding, obviously when he was very young and had not worked out the details of his 'Principia'.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  6. Newton's proposed perpetual motion gravity wheel is certainly interesting. It indicates that he was a lot more PM "friendly" than one might suspect. It also shows his belief that the gravitational force holding things down against the Earth might be due to a continuous incoming "flux" of mass possessing, yet microscopic particles that pushed things toward the center of the Earth as they collided with and bounced off of them. In this sense, gravity would act like a continuous "rain" of particles. If, however, this was the case, then one would expect to see these particles collecting on the Earth's surface over time and nothing like that has ever been found.

    I don't discount the possibility that there MAY be some way to weaken the attractive force of gravity that exists between two objects having mass as between the Earth and a weight. However, I don't expect some sort of miraculous gravity "shielding" material to be invented. I believe that the Master also discounted this possibility when he wrote:

    "But the point is, my invention is not fanciful. I haven't suddenly come up with an unheard-of form of matter; rather, I have invented something new from commonplace materials." (AP, pgs. 288-289)

    When we finally understand the TRUE nature of gravity, then we should be able to figure out a way to artificially weaken it. Once that is done, building an OB PM gravity wheel will be a relatively simple matter. One need just construct a large wheel with massive weights symmetrically located around it perimeter. Next, artificially weaken the pull of the Earth's gravity field on ONE side of the wheel so that the weights there lose some of their weight.

    The wheel will then turn continuously and can be used to drive an AC generator to provide constant electrical power. Of course, in order to work, whatever process one is using to weaken the Earth's gravity field on one side of the wheel had better use LESS electrical power than is outputted by the AC generator attached to the wheel!


    JC wrote:

    "I think that if my version of Bessler's wheel works, it should be possible to use the basic principle which I'm using, to produce a reactionless drive or inertial thrust."

    I wouldn't count on being able to produce a reactionless drive or inertial thrust using Bessler's wheels or ANY type of device for that matter. That would be a serious violation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion and something NEVER observed to happen in Nature or a laboratory.

    Indeed, even Bessler's wheels had to obey the 3rd Law. As one of his wheels rotated in one direction, the Earth would, due to its far greater mass, tend to imperceptible counter rotate in the exact opposite direction so that the SUM of the angular momenta of the wheel and Earth would always equal ZERO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope I will surprise you one day TG :-)

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love surprises...pleasant ones, that is! I can sense that the next year will be the MOST important one in the last several centuries as far as PM is concerned. It will be considered to be a MAJOR turning point in this whole subject and the turn will be a VERY positive one, indeed.

      Following his "surprise" at the House of Richters, Bessler wrote:

      "For I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile." (AP, pg. 271)

      I wonder what went through Bessler's mind on the night that he realized, AFTER a decade of struggle, that he FINALLY had it! Did he sleep that night? Did he faint dead away? Did he become sick and begin vomiting up his dinner? Did he run to the nearest church and spend his night on his knees praying and giving thanks to God? What "rags to riches" or "peasant to king" fantasies raced through his mind on that pivotal night? Sadly, we may never know for sure.

      Delete
  8. John,
    I apologize for deleting that post I just made because actually it was a little bit " too close to home " as concerns my most recent idea . I seem to remember you saying that these posts are cached in your email . ;) Read it at your leisure .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Chris, once a comment is deleted I can't read them, all I can do is delete the 'comment deleted' that replaces a deleted comment.

      JC

      Delete
  9. Come on Trevor, you can't let this slide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still on track,just as keen and very close to closure.

      Delete
    2. This is the time when that ol' demon named "Procrastination" can take over, especially if that next test is a CRITICAL one which, if it fails, spells the end of ALL hope for a current design.

      But, not to worry. The "right track" approach is ALWAYS there waiting for those that are READY to finally make the switch to it.

      In any event, best of luck with your current build.

      Delete
  10. I had a bit of a "revelation" during this morning's modeling session as I continued to struggle onward toward uncovering the details of the "Secret Principle" (without which one can NEVER complete his journey down the "right track" toward duplicating BESSLER'S OB PM gravity wheel design!).

    I previously stated that Bessler deliberately inserted MANY false or "decoy" clues into the two DT portraits in an effort to confuse and trip up any future reverse engineering Bessler mobilists trying to replicate his wheels. This is undoubtedly true, but this morning ANOTHER reason that those PARTICULAR false clues are there occurred to me. The simple answer stunned me!

    I was wondering how he could have come up with some of the decoy clues and then I realized that ALL of them must have been FAILED attempts that BESSLER actually tried HIMSELF as he moved along the "right track" toward final success! In other words, those false clues are actually a HISTORY of the winding path HE had to follow on HIS journey down the "right track"!

    IF he had sold his wheels to a rich buyer, then, obviously, that buyer would not have had to make that same journey down the "right track". He would already have PAID the required price in terms of money for the privilege of just being GIVEN the secret of PM. However, that situation could not apply to some future reverse engineering Bessler mobilist. With Bessler dead and buried years earlier there would be no one to pay for the secret.

    Obviously, Bessler NEVER intended to just give the secret of his PM mechanism away even AFTER his death! That future mobilist would have to follow the SAME arduous "right track" path that Bessler had and make the SAME mistakes along the way that the Master had. Only AFTER that future mobilist had covered the SAME ground that Bessler had would he finally be rewarded with the actual WORKING OB PM gravity wheel design that Bessler found. At that point, that future mobilist would, in effect, be the EQUAL of Bessler as far as his knowledge of PM mechanics was concerned.

    There is more involved with solving the Bessler wheel mystery than just being able to replicate his design. It's really a sort of a personal journey of the mind that, if successful, elevates the creativity and understanding of the mobilist to a height only known to a FEW individuals per millenium! What OTHER possible PM designs might a mind so elevated be able to conceive?

    "In this manner I shall be able to show to others the pathway I myself discovered, after many errors, and which will enable them to bring to light, with little difficulty, even more wonderful things." (DT, pg. 265)

    The day may come when self-motive machinery is so commonplace that people will be astonished that anyone ever thought such devices were impossible! I sense that day is coming soon...

    ReplyDelete
  11. John,
    You may have noticed a different tone in my posts . My confidence is growing and although I feel I understand the principle , I have some peeves about the mechanical aspects of any design based on " difficulties " presented to someone ( me ) who builds machines as a hobby ( and not professionally ) . For the last couple days at least I have been trying to find a " workaround " for an ( assembly ) difficulty presented by the design . I have not found one . However , where there is a will there is a way ( especially with machines ), and I remain optimistic that I will solve the " problem " without compromising any function .

    ReplyDelete
  12. Go for it, Chris, and good luck.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks . I solved the " problem " . I have named the animation " masterpiece " because it is a complete functional model three dimensionally minus a few less significant parts that would be extremely hard to model and animate .

    ReplyDelete
  14. From AP 340: "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster".
    Is there a possibility those pulleys were not used exactly as pulleys?, they are like disks (pierced in the midle), have mass, and can rotate at high speed.....
    "A single word could have betrayed my wondrous achievement"

    Charly2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Viel kreuze, züge und Gewichte translates to " a lot of crosses, trains and weights ."

      So the words you want to says may be "disks" is actually " züge " or " trains " .

      Delete
  15. I think the MT eighties is a good principle , the two storks gills swinging the penduluum when whey pull in and out , but bessler would never have shown the mechanisms , everyone knows that because we all have been told , by whom , the MIB !

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

    ReplyDelete
  17. MT 83 is good , the ship is a duck , you can work that out .
    I had another stroke yesterdaay, i cannot draw anything .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, despite the complex pendulum powered pumps, MT 83 is just as UNworkable as any other design in MT. MT 83 is a variation of what are called "regenerative" or "self-pumping" water wheels, a design that has been tried in countless variations over the centuries and is KNOWN to be UNworkable.

      Delete
  18. The internet is awash with trolls .

    ReplyDelete
  19. I wish, Ealadha, that you would confirm your comments are what you wish to say, before publishing them. I am having to go through your deletions and remove them just to save space and produce a more realistic total for comments. I have no objection to people deleting comments, upon reflection, I have done it myself many times, but you seem to have creaed an art form of deleting and then taken it to a higher more intense level and I'd prefer it if you would think first before committing your words to the public. Thanks.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  20. OK John i will do that , i have been deleting things i have been posting in responce to my detractors , i don't want to mess up your blog by using swear words on it , so i am trying to ignore them instead of answering them .

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, this morning's modeling session produced some surprises of the "pleasant" variety for a change!

    I believe that I now know EXACTLY where the springs were attached inside of the Merseburg wheel and, coupled with a change in some of the dimensions of my "magic" lever's shape allowed by my recent cord count reduction from 48 to 24 cords, it seems that I can now increase my estimated length for the Merseburg wheel springs a little. Instead of 5 inches, I now believe that they would have been 6 inches in length when out of the wheel and sitting UNSTRETCHED on a table. I still maintain that their diameter would have been 1.5 inches. I have not yet been able to determine their spring constants, but they were probably higher than my previous estimate of 3 to 5 lbs per inch.

    Another VERY important detail that emerged today was that the levers in Bessler's wheels WERE under constant spring tension even when their weights were resting against their rim stops. Because of this, the levers themselves would also have been under constant tension when the weights were removed from their ends and the levers were resting against INTERNAL stops attached between opposing pairs of the drum's radial support members.

    This detail explains that loud cracking noise that was produced during the reloading of the Merseburg wheel's weights after the wheel's axle was translocated to a nearby set of vertical supports. That loud sound was caused by one of the two-directional wheel's two sub wheel's still unweighted levers slipping out of Bessler's greasy hand and smacking against its radial support member stop. This would have sent a shock wave throughout the entire structure of the wheel. A VERY important clue, indeed!

    When all of the weights were removed from a wheel, all of its sub wheel's 16 levers would have been held firmly against their radial support member stops. I still don't know how much the Merseburg wheel's 6 inch springs were stretched in order to apply that constant tension to levers resting against their radial support member stops, but it was probably several inches. Obviously, if one does not want a 6 inch spring to exceed about a 50% of UNSTRETCHED length elastic limit, that would mean that no spring within the Merseburg wheel would have exceeded a STRETCHED length of about 9 inches at any time during the wheel's operation.

    Well, I still don't have all of the details of the "Secret Principle", but I feel I'm getting closer to them by the day. I'm starting to more fully appreciate this AP quote:

    "It took a tremendous amount of calculation before I was able to devise this machine! It took a great deal of time before it was all properly figured out! It’s reached the stage now where even a poor workman could put the thing together without a lot of head scratching; and get it completed almost before you could notice. The design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights – and ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without “turning a hair”. I thought that it would be best if things were so, my honorable artisans, for in that way, God willing, you’ll go to your labors more happily." (AP, pgs. 315-316)

    If I can finally complete my journey to the end of the "right track" and find THE design that Bessler used, then, once it is published, I think it will make a LOT of "artisans" out there in PM land very, VERY happy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spring constant k = (Fn-Fo)/(Ln-Lo) = (Gd⁴)/(8D³n)

      Fo, Fn are initial and final spring forces.
      Lo, Ln are initial and final spring lengths.
      G is the shear modulus of the spring wire.
      d is the wire diameter.
      D is the average spring diameter.
      n is the number of active windings.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Anonymous 11:17, that's a nice and easy to understand formula for calculating the spring constant, k. No doubt, Bessler would have been familiar with it or something close to it if he was actually making his own springs by hand.

      Fortunately, much of the calculations are done for me by my sim programs so that I need only concern myself with adjusting the initial unstretched and final stretched spring lengths and then, once those are set, adjusting k until I get the necessary tension force that I need for the model to function the way I think it should.

      My 4:1, 18 inch radius one-directional model wheel uses small 1.5 inch long, unstretched springs and my larger 1:1, 72 inch radius model wheel uses the 6 inch long, unstretched springs which were used in the Merseburg wheel. I have only recently determined, based on the DT portrait clues, that these are the correct lengths to use.

      I also seek to use springs that will have READILY obtained k values so that the craftsmen out there can simply buy them from a supplier rather than having to go through the extra hassle of hand winding and hardening them for use in the Bessler type OB PM gravity wheels that they will be constructing IF I should finally be successful in finding Bessler's "Secret Principle". Without that remaining principle, one can NOT complete his journey 100% of the way to the end of the "right track" and be rewarded with the SAME design that Bessler found. I've been working on that last detail for months now and only making the slowest of progress. IMO, the Secret Principle is MUCH more difficult to find then Bessler's "Connectedness Principle".

      I'm hoping for success BEFORE Christmas of THIS year!

      Delete
  22. " an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without “turning a hair”."

    " So that one counts for a lot of places
    also, some ounce, which is missing here.
    The Work will however maintain its course,
    and respect not a hair on it. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've often wondered just what it means to hold a course "without turning a hair". Your translation of maintaining a course "and respect not a hair on it" is just as baffling.

      Anybody got any suggestions for what these are supposed to mean?

      Delete
  23. Does that sound like overbalance to anyone ? A couple ounces missing on the heavy side ... ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, with eight 4 lb weights in EACH of the two one-directional sub wheels of the Merseburg wheel, random variations among the weights of + or - an ounce would not have significantly changed the location of all the CoM of the eight weights. That is, slight variation would tend to cancel each other out and the CoM would be positioned as though the eight weights all weighted exactly 4 lbs. Ultimately, it was the offset location of the CoM of an active sub wheel which provided the torque to drive the entire wheel (including the INactive sub wheel undergoing retrograde rotation).

      Delete
    2. No offense TG but your answers often lead to a " dead end " for me . I imagine that the above noted statement by Bessler relates to his " overforce principle " or " a pound lifting more than one "...only in the above example he uses " ounces " instead of pounds . What he is saying is that his wheel , as far as the "eye" is concerned is " under-balanced " .

      Delete
  24. When and if i get my ship built , you John and all the members of this blog are invited on the maiden voyage .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just don't name your ship "Titanic II"! LOL!

      Delete
    2. If it's a good ship, you should name it "lollipop".

      Delete
  25. technoguy wrote "...this morning's modeling session..."
    Are you working with a physical build or a computer simulation? Or both??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My modeling STRICTLY uses computer simulations both to speed up my progress and increase the precision of my constructions.

      Many mobilists are trying make OB wheels that, for a 36 inch diameter, table top model, will displaced the CoM of the wheel's weights INCHES over horizontally to one side of the axle. They do this in an effort to maximize the torque delivered to the wheel's axle. The chance of them being able to do that is next to ZERO, IMO.

      Based on the 1:1 computer model of the Merseburg wheel I have, the CoM of one of its active one-directional sub wheel's 8 weights was only displaced about ONE INCH horizontally away from a vertical line passing through the center of the axle. That means that for the table top 4:1 scale computer model I am working on for the active mobilists out there in PM land to actually try building, the CoM is only displaced about 0.25 of an INCH horizonally from a vertical line through the center of the axle! Obviously, even if my computer model works, it will require a somewhat skilled craftsman to replicate it with enough precision for the physical version to also work. Precision become less important as wheel diameter and internal part size increase, but I suspect that most mobilists trying to construct their first WORKING Bessler wheel would not want to start off with one 12 FEET in diameter!

      In the past, I used to be an active builder of PHYSICAL models, but I reached the point where I was not sure whether my wheels weren't turning because my theory of how they should work was in error or if my small scale builds just lacked the precision necessary to place their weights' CoM only a FRACTION of an inch away horizontally from their axles OR BOTH! Switching over to computer models and simulations immediately removed that first doubt; that is, it eliminated imprecision in my constructions.

      Now, happily, I can make my parts precise to virtually any tolerance I wish and, best of all, I ALWAYS know EXACTLY where the CoM of a wheel's weights is located and can even keep track of it as the wheel is allowed to begin rotating. There is no more guess work (aside from trying to interpret Bessler's various clues!) and the cost of each model now consists solely of the time I invest in it.

      I'm flattered to read that you actually think that I am PHYSICALLY building wheels based on my comments here. That is the consequence of the amount of modeling that I do which can be as much as an hour a day although I sometimes take a break for a day or two to study the various clues for ideas on how to modify my models.

      Delete
    2. Correction:

      That line in the fourth paragraph of my comment above that reads "Switching over to computer models and simulations immediately removed that FIRST doubt; that is, it eliminated imprecision in my constructions." should have read "Switching over to computer models and simulations immediately removed that SECOND doubt; that is, it eliminated imprecision in my constructions."

      Sorry about that.

      Delete
  26. I am physically building my wheels because I am not adept in simulation projections and secondly because I do not believe that any sim can predict the unknown factor.
    Let's face it,if it was possible,it would have been done by now.
    When you're working hands on there is always something new to discover.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I, too, found myself initially VERY intimidated by the various sim programs out there. That is why I HIGHLY recommend someone start off with a program like "Working Model 2D". It took me only a few hours of EASY practice with it to be able to construct about 90% of what I wanted to make and have it run nicely. This sim program is used to train student engineers in colleges and is so "user friendly" that it almost hugs you! It comes with a "quick start" tutorial that is only a few pages long and will have you building things almost immediately.

      Also, just because you are using sim programs, that does not mean that you must forever turn your back on making physical builds. You can certainly still do that, but the sims will allow you to screen out dead end "wrong track" designs BEFORE you go to the time, effort, and expense of trying to actually build any of them. Why WASTE your time if you do not really have to?

      I would not worry about some "unknown factor" preventing your sim program from being able to make a working OB PM gravity wheel. Bessler's wheels did NOT violate any of the known laws of physics and, since ALL mechanical sim programs will follow those same laws, you CAN rely upon being able to replicate Bessler's wheels with them. Indeed, WM2D has ALL of the basic construction tools to do this. I can accomplish more in an hour with a sim program than I could in a week in the shop!

      Of course, one must remember that WM2D is only designed to handle models whose parts whose motions are confined to a 2 dimensional plane. For models that contain parts moving in 3 dimensions, one will need more advanced sim programs like "Working Model 3D" which, naturally, will take a little longer to master (however, if you ALREADY know how to use WM2D, you will be able to learn WM3D very quickly).

      I should also mention here that I am 100% convinced that ALL of the motions of the parts within one of Bessler's wheels took place in the PLANE of the drum and that there were NO motions taking place in the so-called "Z dimension". Thus, WM2D is adequate for researching Bessler's wheel mechanics.

      Unfortunately, ALL sim programs, WM2D included, have a few annoying "glitches" in them that, on rare occasions, can lead to erroneous results; that is, a model that will not run even though it should or a model that runs even though it should not! With experience, the user will be able to quickly identify when there are serious glitches present in his models and find ways around them.

      Delete
    2. I am even less impressed when you talk of 2d representation.
      What if the wheel actually needs a 5D interpretation.

      Delete
    3. 5D!!! Now THAT I'd have to see!

      Trust me, 2D is just right for Bessler's wheels and it makes the sim programs required for modeling them much easier to learn and use.

      Delete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...