Saturday, 11 August 2012

What do you do when you've done it?

On the assumption that I think I will succeed in this venture and finally make  a gravity-enabled wheel turn continuously, what then?

I don't mean, do I patent it, release a video of it on youtube or sell it on ebay!  No, I mean what is the actual next step?  I wouldn't want to immediately announce it on besslerwheel forum or stick a video of it on youtube; no, the question is hard to answer until you are in that actual position (I'm not, yet.)

I have a rough plan which involves telling a few highly respected guys I have known for many years, simply that I have done it - no details at that time.  

The next thing is to consider discussing it with two other guys who I'm equally certain I can trust; one is a film producer and the other... well I mustn't give too much away or he'll recognise himself.

Professor Hal Puthoff was very supportive of myself and my book for many years, and offered to bring wealthy philanthropic investment to assist in the development of the machine once it was proved.  I could contact him to see what his response was.  But there are suspicions about his responsibilities - US Government energy advisor, ex-CIA.  Seriously, I doubt there is a problem but one should weight up each case and only decide after a careful assessment of the pros and cons. 

At this point I look at my hopelessly cobbled-together machine and think to myself, 'do I really want the world to see this monstrosity as the first of its kind since Bessler's? No I answer, I must make a new model with nice shiny parts and some fancy paintwork - and none of the thousand or so unused holes!'

Now this all takes some time to deal with, and so I guess that if I were the lucky one, I might just go silent for a week or two in order to try get everything in order before the s*/!/t hits the fan.  Maybe it would take a month who knows? Should I remain silent or just keep rabbiting on about life and the wheel .... and say nothing to anyone?  I really don't know and perhaps I won't need to if some else gets there before me.

Of course if I do go quiet, I doesn't necessarily mean I've found it - it means I can't think of anything sensible to say - like today!
  
JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

53 comments:

  1. Hahaha John ,.That puts the dillema in a nutshell.
    The next step would have to be thought out very carefully.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can only say what I would do.

    First and foremost is to make 100% sure that I do, IN FACT, have IT. That means a LOT of testing since, unlike you, I do not have a physical model, but only a simulated one. I must make ABSOLUTELY SURE that what I have is not the result of a glitch in the software and that, should someone actually build a physical model based on it, that model WILL work.

    Once that hurdle is cleared, I will, of course, immediately mention the rediscovery to a few close and trusted friends to get their reactions. No doubt, they will all wish me well, etc. Sadly, most of my close friends have ZERO interest in PM!

    Next, I will publish the design I have on the internet so that others, especially actively building craftsmen, can try to replicate the design with a physical build. IF I've done my "due diligence" in terms of testing my simulation, then the reports will begin to come in that the physical builds of the wheel ARE working. That, of course, will give me GREAT satisfaction.

    At that point, I am, basically, out of the picture. It will be up to OTHERS to try to improve Bessler's design and turn it into something more economically profitable than the mere mechanical curiosity that it will initially be. I will, of course, wish them luck and, upon request, offer what technical assistance I can. Beyond that there is little more that I am prepared to do. My SOLE goal in this matter is and always was just SOLVING a 300 year old mystery and that mission will be completed. This mystery has been on my mine since my youth and it will be a GREAT relief to FINALLY have done with it!

    Who knows, maybe someday I'll write a book about the rediscovery of Bessler's design and include all of the information about it that I won't initially be revealing like just HOW I figured it all out based on the clues he left. Maybe I'll make a few "happy dollars" from the sale of that volume.

    I do believe that the principles involved in Bessler's design can EVENTUALLY be of use in the "economically feasible" generation of electrical power. But, it will take a LOT of work by an army of engineers to make that reality come to pass. Indeed, it might take DECADES of additional and expensive research before that happens. Right now the world is facing a lot of OTHER serious problems that are demanding attention and, quite possibly, even IF we do have Bessler's design and are building nice little tabletop toys based on it, there will NOT be sufficient political will or investment funding available to make something real come of it on a larger scale.

    It sounds, John, like you are expecting "wealthy philanthropic" investors to suddenly enter the picture should you have a workable design and take it from there. Yes, it sounds good in theory, but Bessler had the same dream and it never happened for him. Why would you expect YOUR or anyone else's situation to be any different? When it comes time for all of those investors to start writing some big checks to begin the "refinement" of any working design, they might suddenly decide that it is too risky and to invest their capital in other things that might, at the time, look more promising like high efficiency solar power panels or even synthetic fuel made from garbage! Just consider that Asa Jackson's formerly WORKING PM wheel has been sitting in a glass display case over here in the USA now for almost 150 years. The number of wealthy investors that have invested in its further development? ZERO!

    Come what may, I look forward to seeing what the future holds and, most importantly, being around as long as possible to see that future! After the solution of the Bessler wheel mystery, I'll no doubt move onto other things or maybe I'll just be content to "rest on my laurels" and enjoy a long and comfortable retirement. Time will tell...

    ReplyDelete
  4. If they are interested i could build them an orffyrean ship , the royal society or whoever .

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think there is a nice soft room waiting for you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I could also build a piano that plays itself, in fact i have all of Johann Bessler's inventions .

    ReplyDelete
  7. Justsomeone said: Hi John. I have also wondered about the first wheel to start spinning and what it would be worth as a museum piece. I am guilty of being overly concerned with the looks of my builds for this reason. Can someone answer this question for us? Is it worth spending the extra time and money on a build that you have a lot of faith in, instead of using any old scraps to throw it together?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IF your build is too sloppy and it does not work, then how will you know whether the design's theory of operation is bad or YOUR craftsmanship is the problem?

      One's initial build should be precise enough to eliminate the possibility of the imprecision of its construction being the problem. Once that is eliminated AND the design is shown to work, then one can consider fabricating a nice "show" model using fresh materials and, perhaps, even individual components painted different color so as to help a viewer differentiate between them.

      In the case of my computer model wheels, I use different colors of the rainbow for its various sets of cords (in the one-directional wheel there are currently 4 sets of 8 identical cords for a total of 32 cords); that is, all of the cords of each set which are the same length are given the same color. This makes following the various actions during rotation much easier.

      Delete
    2. Justsomeone, I have made so many builds over the years that I could not afford to spend money on making good models each time, and I always use the material from one build for the next, hence all the redundant holes! Even if I decided to build a good looking model after I had succeeded, I would keep my first one as a memento.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Justsomeone , some branches off trees , some heavy stones and stick it all together with some duct tape and then sell to a museum !

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. "What do you do when you've done it?" - J.C. inquires of us

    'Put to The Question, he was!'

    So, to add to the fun I would say I would do the same as did bro. Bessler himself: Take a vacation, do a lot of reflecting but, contrarily, to NOT wife-search. Heavens no!

    (In these days, a certain quantity of kind, logical misogyny is a sad necessity rather than a mere luxury. Given those circumstances of yore, as we mostly now know them to have been, Bessler would have been a far, far better off fellow had he gone through life as a bachelor, even if not one necessarily 'confirmed' as Heinrich XVIII - Graf Reuss zu Gera - was, rather more likely than not. Just as it is with cats [the great feline races} when insufficiently respected / badly treated, the female of our own, homo sapiens sapiens, can quite immediately turn into an active DEMON spawned virtually of all Concerted Hell itself!!! In both cases, uniformly, they are the things to be avoided and thus, my suggestion 'pro' a soft misogyny and, for giving cats their historically earned respect. BEWARE the tender trap! It is not deemed a 'trap' for nothing, chappies!)

    Yeah! Post the Great Success, I believe getting away from it all would be essential to re-establishing of cerebral/spiritual balance and perspective.

    (For after all, years upon years and hundreds of thousands of hours of involvement devoted to such an ill-advised quest [this according to what fetid, concentrated odiousness that lays at the bottom of that prickly, know-it-all, scientific main-stream) surely would addle one's finer sensibilities to some small extent, at least. No?)

    Let us thank Goodness, as we must, for most of us will never have to contend with such in-opportunities. For the moment, at least, it now mercifully seems to be up to J.C.

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

    technoguy 11 August 2012 19:11

    "I can only say what I would do."

    As with most else coming from this questionable quarter of vituperation, it would be yet another LIE! We are all well aware that very many billions of more words could forth-come-issue from this silly, self-admiring, posterior puffing mechanism!

    Then, further down, we are treated to this lovely flatulent issuance:

    ". . . No doubt, they will all wish me well, etc. . . ."

    Given his/her/it's fantasized positive circumstance, I suspect that this would prove to be but more classical wishful thinking, on the creature-peculiar's part, but, I could be wrong, maybe they love this creeping, pestilential of mind.

    And then comes an undoubtable GEM:

    "That, of course, will give me GREAT satisfaction."

    ". . . me . . ."!

    But who or what is "me" and, given this reality, why are we supposed to give a rat's rear as a care?

    And finally, we arrive at the best of all - the perennial PROMISE:

    "At that point, I am, basically, out of the picture. . . ." (But NOT out of commas!)

    Once again, we are titillated by this Great Possibility but, why not NOW rather than later, after this that or the other thing has transpired?

    Of course my question is simply rhetorical. We all know "why", do we not?

    Seemingly, this written masturbatory excess MUST go on with all of us dragged into the pornographic spectacle, of the lifting up of this foul, Troll of Mystery!

    [Apparently, it is to be our tortuous penance to have to abide it to the end.]

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

    CHEERS and,

    All the best(s)

    James

    Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. ". . . No doubt, they will all wish me well, etc. . . ."

    "Given his/her/it's fantasized positive circumstance, I suspect that this would prove to be but more classical wishful thinking, on the creature-peculiar's part, but, I could be wrong, maybe they love this creeping, pestilential of mind."

    Actually, I have been wished well on many things FAR less spectacular than the rediscovery of Bessler's secret OB PM gravity wheel mechanics by people less important to me than my closest confidantes.

    As I previously mentioned, practically all of my off line friends have ZERO interest in the subject of PM. It is something they have been programmed by our "educational" system to view as a physical impossibility and, therefore, a total waste of time to even discuss. I have found that all attempts by me to explain the physics of such a device just "go over their heads" as, quite surprisingly, it also does when I try to explain it online to people who actually SPECIALIZE in and profess to believe in the possibility / probability of PM!

    One might think that the solution to all of this is to simply "get on with it" and deliver a tested and verified WORKING design for Bessler's OB PM gravity wheels. That, of course, I intend on doing. However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the design I deliver is not just quickly sniffed at and then ignored as the Bessler mobilists out there collectively turn back to working on their various pet "wrong track" designs despite not having been able to get any of them to work in years / decades. Even if someone tries to replicate the design I present and claims that it does, indeed, work, their results will also probably be dismissed as a hoax! It might take successful replication by at least half a dozen "artisans" before the design is grudgingly admitted as workable. Even then there will be many, envious of having been beaten to the finish line, who will refuse to acknowledge that it could have been the same one Bessler found. So be it.

    Ultimately, there is really only ONE person that I have to convince that the design Bessler found has been rediscovered. That person is ME! As long as I can HONESTLY convince myself that I have the SAME design Bessler used (and I can be VERY hard to convince!), then that is really ALL I want out of this subject. IF the rest of the world eventually acknowledges that the design has been rediscovered, then that will only be some tasty frosting on the cake of the successful rediscovery that I already have. But, the cake is enough for me if I can not also have the frosting with it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is a strange thing TG, and somewhat reminiscent of the faithful followers of the world's great religions, where everyone of them believes that their religion is the true faith, so each of us believes that we know the true way to Bessler's wheel. That is why I read your comments with mounting incredulity because your descriptions of your design fall so far from mine as to be utterly incompatible with each other. This suggests that at least one of us is on the 'wrong track'!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...your descriptions of your design fall so far from mine as to be utterly incompatible with each other. This suggests that at least one of us is on the 'wrong track'!"

      That is quite true, John, but I believe that if you were aware of the MANY clues (most of which have NOT yet been published!) and their CORRECT interpretations which took me YEARS of effort to derive and which are the basis of my present "right track" design (actually Bessler's design!), then you would IMMEDIATELY abandon your present design (which I MUST, of course, consider "wrong track" as far as being THE one that Bessler found although that does NOT necessarily mean that your present design is unworkable) and begin building the design I have! This scenario may, indeed, eventually come to pass!

      So far, I have only revealed about 30% of what I have learned about Bessler's secret wheel mechanism. There is much, MUCH more to it than the somewhat vague generalities (aka "tasty nuts") that I occasionally insert into my comments to keep my fellow Bessler mobilists (aka "hungry squirrels") drooling for more. Yes, the design IS "So simple a carpenter's boy could...", but it is also VERY novel because it incorporates some quite unexpected "tricks" that have eluded ALL mobilists since the time of Bessler.

      These mechanical tricks are ones that Bessler would have learned from his work as an organmaker and which involve methods for optimizing and precisely controlling the timing of the transfer of energy / mass between the 8 weighted levers of a rotating carrier drum. The idea that Besssler could have found this design by simple trial and error is TOTALLY amazing to me considering the amount of work I've had to do with modern computer simulation programs to do the same! He WAS truly a VERY skilled craftsman.

      As I previously announced, because of recent breakthroughs in clue interpretations, I am now about 99% of the way toward the end of the "right track" approach to solving the Bessler mystery. The end is in sight and, with a bit of luck, I might arrive there in only a few more weeks or so (like you, I tend to avoid giving precise dates). It will be the end of a very long and exhausting journey for me, but all of that will be quickly forgotten as I savor the REALITY that, FINALLY, this mystery is SOLVED!

      Delete
  12. Consider disc or narrow cylinder in a grinding manner (Bessler DT)
    Techno, how does that fit in,inside your design?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bessler's comparison of his wheel to a "narrow disc" or "grindstone" was his way of qualitatively describing the shape and dimensions of a wheel's drum to a reader who would have already been familiar with such things as the giant stones used to grind various grains into flours. There were NO grindstones, flywheels, or any kind of "inner" wheel or disc inside of a wheel's drum. Their interiors were mostly empty space, but the components, particularly as one got closer to the outer rim of a wheel, were VERY compactly arranged between the drum's radial support members.

      If you could travel back in time, pop up inside the room containing the two-directional Merseburg wheel while Bessler was asleep, and tear away the layers of cloth covering one of its sides, then you would see a somewhat delicate framework of wood, 16 cylindrical lead weights mounted on the ends of 16 relatively short (14 inches), but specially shaped levers, a set of brass bearings mounted into the radial support memebers for the levers' steel pivot rods, a collection of 64 cords of various lengths, 16 springs (6 inches in length when relaxed) which supplied tension to the levers, and the 16 gravity activated latches half of which were needed to lock up a retrograde rotating sub wheel's weights against their rim stops in order to achieve bi-directionality. THAT would be practically all that you would see and pretty much the same thing that Count Karl would have seen when he finally inspected the interior of the Weissenstein wheel.

      Delete
  13. I know what to do , get some lamp black, do some carving and illustrations . that is the thing to do because everything recorded on computers will be gone in years to come .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are your parents still living?

      If so, ask them if they dropped you on your head. Actually how many times did they do this.

      Delete
  14. Schopenhauer applies here, I think. He stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Hence, it's easily predictable what would happen and what to do.

    We are still in the "ridicule" phase. As is the case with many such "impossible" inventions, it will take time before it is accepted by science. First they will attack it until it cannot be denied anymore. Then they will eventually come up with some explanation why this "exception" or "anomaly" is possible (and self-evident) within the current paradigm.

    Discussing the critics is pointless and time, energy and money intensive. Plus, they'll never be satisfied. So the best thing to do is to get it "out in the open" as soon as possible, in every possible details. Flood Youtube with videos critics cannot deny, at the same time sell demonstration models on E(vil)bay. But most importantly: make sure it is widely adopted by underdeveloped countries, and then start bombarding the media (yes, that same media that *will* ridicule and/or ignore you) with copy and proof that its being used.

    After considerable time, they will accept it (as self-evident).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sound advice as always, Andre, thank you.

    I hope the floods are not affecting you too badly.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks JC for the concern. Nice anecdote: due to the flooding many conventional regulation pumps got overloaded and clogged with debris. The nice part is the fact that now another often-neglected (and ridiculed) invention brought effective help: old man Tesla's bladeless turbine pumps. They have better performance, are almost indestructible -only one moving part- and they do not clog up.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Andre

    I agree 100% with what you've posted.

    Eventually, working Bessler type OB PM gravity wheels will be "accepted" by mainstream science and their operational principles rationalized within our current framework of physical laws. And, do doubt, since "seeing is believing" (eventually!), when enough working models have been constructed, the critics will fall silent. Whether or not anything ever comes of these devices is, however, another matter.

    Sometime back during the 19th century an interesting device called a "radiometer" was invented. It's basically a light bulb shaped glass envelope that is nearly evaculated and which contains a light weight set of metal "vanes" that can rotate about an upright pivot inside of the bulb, but which can not fall off of the pivot should the bulb be inverted. I won't go into the physics of how this device works, but if you place it in the sunlight, it will spin like crazy and, quite interestingly, if you place it in a freezer in the dark, it will spin like crazy in the opposite direction!

    This device is, essentially, no different than either Bessler's or Asa Jackson's PM gravity wheels! How? Both of those wheels derived their outputted energy / mass by tapping its content in their weights. The radiometer also derives its outputted energy / mass (which is mostly constrained to overcoming aerodynamic and pivot frictions while making its vanes spin) by also tapping a source of energy / mass. Only in the case of the radiometer, that energy / mass is coming, via emitted electromagnetic radiation, from some of the helium nuclei being created by fusion reactions at the core of our Sun.

    When I first obtained one of these radiometers as a child, I was fascinated by it and it helped spark my interest in physics. However, over the years I wondered why it was not being used as a realistic source of power. I envisioned huge turbine-like radiometers spinning away in specially designed evaculated glass cases whose multiple vanes would be connected to AC generators also located inside of the cases. Electrical power would be constantly generated and extracted from these oversized radiometers by cables passing through their cases. They would be able to run day OR NIGHT (although in the opposite direction) and almost continuously output power.

    Yet, here we are over a century after their appearance and they are still nothing more than a curiosity being sold to kids in museum gift shops! Don't be too surprised if the SAME fate awaits the first Bessler type working OB PM gravity wheels!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe Lord Kelvin invented it, I am not completely sure though. Tesla called it "one of the most beautiful devices". And indeed it is a fascinating invention.

      Delete
    2. Actually, it was invented by the famous chemist, Sir William Crookes, in, IIRC, 1874 and is also referred to as the "Crookes Radiometer".

      Interestingly, even Einstein once worked on trying to explain how the incoming radiant energy moves the vanes about!

      Delete
  18. John, you haven't dropped any clues lately. I hope you haven't given up on the idea of sharing information as you move forward.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No I'll drop some more soon, but I'll be away for just over a week, but I'll leave a clue or two before I go.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  20. Two would be better. :D

    ReplyDelete
  21. Did Johann Bessler not leave enough clues !

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ealadha, don't you have a gay owl to take care of?

    ReplyDelete
  23. All you are waiting for some stupid fool to come along and disclose the bessler wheel to the world . That is what none of you will admit to .

    ReplyDelete
  24. John,..Could I prevail on you to eliminate the anonymous option.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Can we please ban 'Ealadha' , he's self important " you just need to use what i said on this blog", and offensive "waiting for some stupid fool to come along", and too off the wall "get some lamp black, do some carving and illustrations" ??

    ReplyDelete
  26. Or maybe I'll just join him : "YOU will never get the secret! its in the sausage!", "I have many ideas much better than any of yours", "I can build a working wheel tomorrow with the help of Neptune", " but I is not making this up!"
    sigh ...what a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Surely,access to these posts should require qualification by virtue of the individuals positive input.
    Humour we can tolerate.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Trevor, there is humor in the gay owl post. It reflects back to Besslerwheel.com and some of Ealadha's bizarre behavior there. I wish he would find another sandbox to play in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he needs to cerified!

      Delete
  29. John please get rid of this retard!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Poltergeists wander freely through locked doors.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Unfortunately I can't ban some one and others have requested the easy option for posting. All I can do is hope that he gets bored and goes away or simply reads the posts and refrains from commenting.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  32. PART I:

    @ JC

    Sorry to read that you are taking yet another break and will, I assume, be shutting down this blog for another week to prevent "vulgarians" from taking over. Nothing more annoying than having a mamouth comment deletion "clean up" job waiting for you upon your return!

    So be it. It will be an excellent opportunity for me to focus all of my limited free time exclusively on trying to propel myself down the remaining 1% of the "right track" that separates me from the final destination: being able to see the ACTUAL design Bessler used IN ACTION...although, unfortunately, it will only be on a 20" flat panel monitor. Someday soon thereafter it will, hopefully, be in REALITY!

    Some interesting further details are emerging from my current research.

    For example, I've talked about a two-directional wheel's radial drum supports and one may have gotten the impression that, since there were 8 weighted levers in eachof its sub wheels and the drum had two sides, then there must have been only 8 x 2 = 16 radial drum supports. NOT SO! Apparently, there is need for an EXTRA 8 radial drum supports INSIDE of the drum which, of course, would have been hidden from view.

    These extra radial drum supports would have served two important purposes. Firstly, they would have provided extra rigidity to the drum without greatly increasing its weight and, secondly, they would have provided wooden structures into which half of the sub wheels' brass pivot bearing would be placed or "nested".

    Remember that, as a two-directional wheel rotates in either of its two possible directions, there will ALWAYS be ONE of its sub wheels whose 8 weighted levers will not be swinging about because they have had all of their weights locked up against their rim stops (this action disables that sub wheel by returning the CoM of its weights to the center of the axle). The other sub wheel's 8 weights will be able to swing about (within limits, that is) so as to maintain their CoM on the drum's descending side and provide continuous driving torque.

    ReplyDelete
  33. PART II:

    This means that each adjacent pair of weighted levers, each member of which belongs to a DIFFERENT sub wheel, can not use the SAME iron pivot rod. There must be at least TWO seperate pivots rods so that they can move INDEPENDENTLY of each other. That also means that each weighted lever must have its OWN set of two brass pivot bearings and these have to be mounted into radial drum supports. Obviously, the most space saving thing to do is to mount a single COMMON brass pivot bearing piece between a pair of adjacent weighted levers and to locate it in a central radial drum support. Each of the adjacent weighted levers pivot rods will share this single brass bearing piece.

    This has implications for what a skeptic allowed to insert his hand into a hole in the side cloth of the Merseburg wheel might feel as he tried to "grope" the axle to convince himself that there were no weights or mechanisms suspended from it.

    Because of the presence of the extra internal set of 8 radial drum supports, he would not have been able to simply stroke the length of the internal section of axle from one side of the drum to the other. His hand would, most likely, first have been able to feel the nearest half length of axle and then, in order to feel the farther half of the axle, he would have had to have reached around the central radial drum support members to do so. From studying the schematics I have of the Merseburg wheel, I believe that this maneuver would have been possible without having to tear the hole if the hole was not placed too close to the axle. A distance of about 18 inches from the center of the axle seems reasonable to me.

    I'm also convinced that the later two-directional wheel drum's Bessler used were simply glued together with a minimum of nails being used. In fact, the nails may only have been used to hold two pieces together while the glue between them dried to its full bonding strength. One would be amazed at how strong a glued together wood construction can be.


    Ealadha wrote:

    "All you are waiting for some stupid fool to come along and disclose the bessler wheel to the world."

    I would be BLISSFULLY happy to be THAT "stupid fool"! LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  34. It is not easy in the preparation of perpetual motion! As you prepare, more and more possible variations lie on the horizon. The best hobby in the world
    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I continue to use the working hypothesis that Bessler only had a SINGLE "perpetual motion structure" that he had found which worked. While the materials and dimensions of this single mechanism could, of course, be varied, its geometry and ratios could NOT be varied without diminishing or destroying the "PM effect".

      Are there OTHER mechanisms that can lead to a working OB PM gravity wheel?

      That is a question that I have spent MUCH time pondering. Bessler may, at the time that the illustrations in MT were being "cranked out", have thought that was the case, but, most likely, ALL of his publicly demonstrated wheels only used the ONE mechanism that he had found which did work. I see nothing in MT that is workable as illustrated.

      I tend to think, especially when considering the Asa Jackson wheel, that there ARE approaches to building an OB PM gravity wheel OTHER than the one Bessler found. Quite possibly, AFTER the design that Bessler found is revealed, the principles it uses will allow inventors to more easily find these other designs that will also work. Right now, however, I intend to focus my efforts on finding what BESSLER found considering the wealth of details we have about his particular discovery.

      Delete
  35. The. Cunning cat slinks silently along and snatches nice juicy mice.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ah so it is possible to delete comments, if not ban someone ;)
    Apologies for the strong language, but I have had enough of 'E' s comments and he's likely to drive me and others away from the site with his offensive nonsensical rubbish.
    And I am only 'anonymous' as I dont have google mail/URL/AOL ect.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I will delete comments containing bad language Jon and anything I don't like, which isn't much, but eahlada seems to be 'barking'.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  38. I am excommunicated . The high priests deny that i am the messiah .

    ReplyDelete
  39. The interest rates on little or no credit check homeowner loans are relatively restored and the balances amounts
    loaned are often determined based on your income alone. They are
    extremely useful briefly intervals of time.

    Here is my site pikavippi credit

    ReplyDelete
  40. Currently, it is actually working to offer marketing services in the domain within health care, infrastructures ,
    tourism as well as a industrial products and after that
    services. SEO services include lot of website interchange to the web page.



    Also visit my site :: seo service for small business

    ReplyDelete

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...