It seems clear to me that Bessler's wheel was in a state of continuous imbalance. The first wheels which only turned one way, had to be tied down or locked to prevent them turning. Witnesses reported that the wheel began to turn spontaneously as soon as the lock was released. Bessler said that his "weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’, which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force indefinitely – so long as theykeep away from the centre of gravity."
It has been suggested elsewhere that perhaps the wheel was tied down at a certain point so that it would begin to turn of its own accord when released. I think that if you have a wheel which must be continuously out of balance, which is what I believe a gravity-driven wheel would be, then there would be no need to tie it down at a special place; every position of the wheel would be out of balance.
Bessler wrote textual clues in two ways; he said exactly what the clues suggest he meant, as in the above quotation - or he wrote in ambiguous terms so as not to give too much away; but he did not lie. The sincerity in his words shines through, he was excited about his discovery and, just as we do, he liked to tease us with bits of information. So when he said "weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force indefinitely – so long as theykeep away from the centre of gravity," that is what he meant. You can try to read between the lines and get at some other hidden meaning, but there isn't one; it does what it says it does.
I'm well aware of the facts constantly repeated for my benefit, that gravity is not a source of energy. Fine! You believe that if you want to. Bessler's machine worked; he stated that the weights themselves were the PM device; that means that they needed gravity to work, because weights are inseparable from the effects of gravity. Now you may say that gravity cannot provide a force, but falling weights can and do. So the force comes from the weights which respond to the effects of gravity. A simple weight-driven clock gets its energy from falling weights - if that is not tapping the force of gravity then I don't know what is. The solution to the apparent problem of returning the weight to its starting point has been described by me in outline elsewhere and I have also solved the problem of leverage issues - which I haven't described elsewhere.
I know there will be a torrent of attempts to correct my misguided beliefs, but I shall continue on my way content in the knowledge that I am right and you are wrong. I mean those of you who persist in believing that what you have been taught about gravity is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and insist that gravity can't be used to drive the weights which turned Bessler's wheel. :) Scientists (some of them) maintain that gravity is one of the four forces in physics, albeit the weakest one. In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. Weights fall under the influence of gravity so it must be a force.
There are other arguments which say that it depends on the theory and framework you're using. If you invoke Newton's mechanics in trying to answer why a ball falls down to earth after you throw it upward, then gravity is certainly a force. If, however, you look at the revolution of the earth around the sun in the context of Einstein's general relativity, then it is less of a force and more of the tendency of massive objects to form curves and dents in space-time.
The answer is much simpler than that - all that matters is that gravity acts like a force here on earth, regardless of how it came about.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Some people never agree.
ReplyDeleteSome people always agree.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteWell, John, you certainly have the "basics" of Bessler's wheels correct. His one-directional early versions were always OB and that condition did not matter upon the particular orientations in which they were tethered. His revolutionary discovery was the simple design he found that would KEEP his wheels continuously OB as they rotated and even accelerated up to a maximum terminal rotation rate.
The problem with believing that the energy / mass outputted from Bessler's OB PM gravity wheels came from gravity is that, if so, then one is obliged to go on to believe that Bessler's wheels could, as long as gravity was present, output energy / mass FOREVER. Thus, the "gravity provides a wheel's outputted energy / mass hypothesis" leads one to believe that, potentially, a wheel could, by using a continuously present gravity field, output an INFINITE quantity of energy / mass! If one, however, accepts that the energy / mass outputted from Bessler's wheels was derived from the "innate" energy / mass content of their weights, then he must believe that his wheels could not output energy / mass FOREVER because those weights only had a FINITE quantity of energy / mass inside of them.
In any event, gravity and energy / mass theories aside, the mobilist's main problem is trying to find a mechanism that will MAINTAIN an asymmetry of forces acting on his wheel's axle. In the "right track" approach I promote, these asymmetric forces are provided by a VERY carefully counter balanced configuration of weighted levers that always react to any drum rotation that might move the location of their weights' CoM from the drum's descending side toward its ascending side by immediately and automatically reorienting the weighted levers so as to keep the CoM where it was originally located.
Incredibly, although the CoM within one of Bessler's wheels remained, more or less, fixed in space during drum rotation, as far as the rotational kinetic energy / mass content of the entire wheel and its axle was concerned, it was as though the CoM was in a constant state of freefall and, thus, constantly converting some of its gravitational potential energy / mass into rotational kinetic energy / mass in order to accelerate all of the structures of the wheel and axle during each drum rotation! I have spent much time pondering how this could be possible since we've all be taught that a weight can not convert its gravitational potential energy / mass into kinetic energy / mass unless it is FALLING in a gravity field which obviously, with a fixed location for the CoM, was NOT happening inside of Bessler's wheels!
PART II:
ReplyDeleteThe only tentative solution that I have for this apparently impossible behavior is that the CoM within a Bessler wheel was NOT losing any of its gravitational potential energy / mass content in order to supply the extra rotational kinetic energy / mass that accumulated in a wheel and its axle and made them accelerate. Rather, that extra rotational kinetic energy / mass supplied to the entire wheel and its axle was coming DIRECTLY from the "innate" energy / mass of the weights that created the CoM.
If this solution is correct, then it implies that the weights within a Bessler wheel, because of the continously maintained OB of their CoM, were doing something VERY unique. They were, in essence, slowly "uncreating themselves" in order to power the wheels and any outside devices attached to their axles. What happens when the "innate" energy / mass of all of the subatomic particles that compose the atoms of a substance is eventually COMPLETELY extracted from those subatomic particles? Well, assuming that this is even possible, then, obviously, the substance will become massless and, because of this, both inertialess and weightless. Maybe its atoms will then just disappear from our universe!
I think future physicists will be VERY intrigued by the possibilities suggested by Bessler's wheels once they are resurrected and they begin to try to rationalize their operation.
PART I.
DeleteI really disagree there,..TG your theory boarders on the level of intelligence of the Flat Earth Society.
The wheel principle is gravity and gravity only.
@ OB Mobilists et al ...
Delete"The wheel principle is gravity and gravity only".
Possibly, but over 300 years of history is not on your side. Hundreds if not thousands of dedicated mobilists from all walks of life have searched for the secret in the place you have found it.
...have NOT found it...
Delete...want to find it...
DeleteTrevor wrote: "The wheel principle is gravity and gravity only."
DeleteIf so, then do you agree or disagree that one of Bessler's wheels would operate if placed into a horizontally oriented centrifuge (so that the plane of the drum was also horizontally oriented to the Earth's gravity field) that was rotating fast enough to apply a g force of several pounds to its weights?
Anyway, I'm a bit surprised that no one found it interesting that the CoM in one of Bessler's wheels could remain STATIONARY relative to the center of the Earth (and, thus, lose no gravitational potential energy / mass) and that the wheel could operate at a CONSTANT rotation rate while CONTINUOUSLY outputting energy / mass to perform "outside" work. That outputted energy / mass HAD to come from somewhere if one assumes (as I do!) that it could not just be created out of nothing. Yet, it can NOT have come from an external source or from any "conventional" source within a wheel if we are to believe Bessler (which I do). So, WHERE did a wheel's outputted energy / mass come from and HOW was it extracted?
The ONLY solution which makes sense to me is that it came from the "innate" energy / mass content of the wheel's weights themselves. But HOW?
Perhaps, the fact that the offset CoM's in his wheels could be considered to be SPINNING about themselves during drum rotation has something to do with the mysterious extraction process that, literally, drains the "innate" energy / mass out of an OB PM gravity wheel's weights!
It's also interesting to note that when the "innate" energy / mass was extracted from the weights within one of Bessler's wheels and used to power some outside piece of machinery, that energy / mass did NOT become extra "innate" energy / mass in the subatomic particles that composed the various parts of the outside piece of machinery. Rather, it just was converted into various "higher" forms of kinetic and rotational energy / mass that was then TEMPORARILY ADDED to the original "innate" energy / mass content of the piece of machinery's various subatomic particles. When the parts in the attached machine eventually slowed to a stop (as when the outside machine was disconnected from the axle of one of Bessler's wheels, they would lose all of that temporarily added energy / mass, but their atoms' subatomic particles would all still possess their original amounts of "innate" energy / mass.
IF this scenario is correct, then it implies that, once drained of their "innate" energy / mass the subatomic particles that composed the lead atoms of the weights within a working OB PM gravity wheel can NOT be restored to their original values. That is, one can only reduce the "innate" energy / mass content of an atom's subatomic particles (by using the atoms constructed from them as weights inside of an OB PM gravity wheel!), but never replenish it (at least by ordinary means).
Oh, yes, the physicists are going to have the time of their lives when Bessler's wheels are finally resurrected!
TG,..I do agree that two or more wheels could work in a centrafuge,in fact that was one of my original ideas.
DeleteOkay, then, obviously, one can dispense with using gravity to make Bessler's wheels work. The wheels could be diametrically opposed to each other and rotating in opposite directions. Under these conditions the two wheels would continuously output energy / mass, yet the centrifuge containing them, which could just be a rotation wheel type space station, would not slow its rate of rotation. Now, from whence does the outputted energy / mass of the two rotating Bessler wheels come from? We've eliminated the Earth's gravity field AND the rotating space station.
DeleteThere is only ONE place their outputted energy / mass could come from!
“He who wishes to make it in this world must often be prepared to use a combination of lateral thinking and initiative!” Bessler
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wikipedia, the term “lateral thinking” was coined in 1967 by Edward de Bono. Edward de Bono's key concept is that logical, linear and critical thinking has limitations because it is based on argumentation. The traditional critical thinking processes of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates are reductive, designed to eliminate all but the truth. In many of de Bono's books, he calls for the more important need for creative thinking as a constructive way though that is deliberately designed. In de Bono's first book, The Mechanism of Mind, he wrote of the importance of disrupting the dominant patterns preferred by human brain design, in order to facilitate potential creative abilities. Many of de Bono's speculative models from that era about how the brain worked were vindicated by later brain research.
Lateral thinking, (literally, sideways thinking) uses various acts of provocation to incite ideas that are free from previously locked assumptions. The best known lateral thinking technique is the "random word." Invention of the word "PO" by de Bono, (meaning Provocative Operation, also related to POetry and hyPOthesis) gives notice that what will follow isn't meant as nonsense, but intended to relate to the subject at hand. Various provocative lateral thinking actions, (such as escape, new stimuli, reversal, etc.) were designed to deliberately shift perceptional assumptions for the purpose of generating observations and insights about the subject.
Lateral thinking is different from our normal perceptions regarding creativity and innovation, and it is even different from pure vertical logic and pure horizontal imagination:
• Purely horizontal thinking is known as daydreaming. Fantasy. Mysticism. The purely horizontal thinker has a thousand ideas but puts none of them into action. He or she sees the big picture and all its possibilities but has little interest in linear, step-by-step implementation.
• Purely vertical thinking leads to compliance, conformity, and a false sense of knowledge. (False because it’s often just memorization in disguise. The student knows what to do without understanding why.) The purely vertical thinker is a nit-picker, a legalist, a tight-ass.
"You'll soon find, you splendid mechanics, that this is a nut you can't crack!” Bessler
"You'll soon find, you splendid mechanics, that this is a nut you can't crack!”
DeleteCould Bessler be referring to the study of Mechanics rather than people? Mechanics deals with forces that maintain equilibrium, something you want to avoid in a wheel, so it makes sense that he could have been referring to Mechanics as a source of information.
When one is on the "right track" approach to solving the Bessler wheel mystery and using the two DT portrait clues to guide him, he must practice what I call "feedback loop thinking"!
DeleteOne's current best interpretations of the many portrait clues guides his wheel construction and its testing and the results of the testing then guide his future discovery and interpretations of clues which give rise to new designs to construct and test. In past comments I've referred to this as a "dance", but, perhaps, its more like a whirlpool that draws one closer and closer to THE final design that Bessler found and used.
This approach is certainly not the "usual" way one goes about solving an engineering problem. Engineers are used to having some solid theories, principles, mechanisms, and math to guide their constructions. With Bessler's wheels, the reverse engineering mobilist must make his discoveries along the way and then test every one of them to see if it moves him forward or not. It is an agonizingly slow process most of the time, but, every once in a while, something VERY important will just pop up during one's portrait analysis session.
Despite these many difficulties, if one can keep his focus and keep moving along, then, eventually (meaning WITHIN his lifetime!), successful rediscovery WILL take place.
TG,..You're thinking too deep.The solution is so simple you're tripping over it.
DeleteAlright already, Trevor, I'll take your bait. What is the "solution...so simple [I'm] tripping over it"?
DeleteAs for thinking "too deep", I often think I'm NOT thinking deeply enough!
@JC
ReplyDeleteJohn, while some aspects of our 'clue' decoding may differ, I believe that we are on parallel paths.
As far as this Blog entry is concerned, I concur completely.
I understand that you haven't revealed all that you know, and that you are holding off until you complete your experiments. I have taken the same position, but to a fuller degree. Since I started working towards solving this craziness I have exposed little more than hints and generalities of my efforts. When I have finished, or if I run into a block wall that I can't eliminate, I will put all my cards on the table.
I (patiently) look forward to learning how you "have also solved the problem of leverage issues", as well as any other information you choose to reveal, when the time is right.
Mark (from the BW Forum)
With the due respect, 300 years searching in the same place and found nothing... does this look odd?, weird?, I don't think so. Even da Vinci tried it the same way.
ReplyDeleteJC you have an army trying to found the solution, I'm part of it (I have to say thanks for showing the door). But someone have to seek in different direction.
I'm not fan of Einstein but he had nice quotes for different situations, like this:
If you want different results, do not do the same things.
Charly2
leftSIDE ... rightSIDE
ReplyDeleteinSIDE ... outSIDE
I believe there is another way to interpret Bessler's Principle of Excess Weight.
Late breaking news!
ReplyDeleteI managed to complete the "source" wheel for my "75 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" model wheel and, so far, everything is going smoothly. (It's called a "source" wheel because it serves as a general template to use should further modifications of a design become necessary which, unfortunately, is usually the case!)
This wheel, as I mentioned in the last blog entry's comments section, has its 7:30 weighted lever NOT vertical, but, rather, rotated 15 degrees CW away from a vertical line passing through its pivot and, when rotating, will have its 1:30 going to 3:00 position weighted lever's weight alighting on its rim stop BEFORE the lever's pivot reaches the 3:00 position. These features seem to agree with the latest interpretations that I've done of certain clues in the 2nd DT portrait which I've only recently discovered.
The next step is the "draping" process. This requires that the 3:00 position weighted lever be immobilized (by pinning it to the wheel which is itself pinned to the Workspace background) and then progressively increasing the lengths of the main interconnecting cords between the weighted levers whose pivots are located at the wheel's 3:00, 1:30, 12:00, 10:30, and 9:00 positions.
The draping procedure is allowed to continue until the 9:00 weighted lever makes a certain specific angle with a horizontal line passing through its pivot. Once that angle has been attained, then the configuration of the wheel's upper half weighted levers is established and the simulation can then be Run to determine the location of the CoM of the model wheel's eight 1 ounce weights.
IF this preliminary test shows that the CoM projects horizontally away from a vertical line passing through the center of the wheel's axle for a distance in excess of 0.20000 inches then that will be a VERY good sign. After draping is completed, then it will be time to place the other active cords into the design and assign various k values to the active primary and secondary springs attached to the model's weighted levers.
Finally, a 45 degree interval wheel rotation test is performed in which an assisting motor slowly rotates the wheel through 45 degrees. Hopefully, this latest design will finally deliver an EARLY in the interval "Bessler Effect" as the 9:00 going to 10:30 position weighted lever promptly begins rotating CW and thereby bringing its weight closer to its rim stop. As that is happening, all of the other weights leading it up to that of the 1:30 going to 3:00 weighted lever will also be moving closer to their respective rim stops with that last weight making GENTLE contact with its rim stop well before its pivot reaches the 3:00 position. If this can then be done, then the CoM of the eight 1 ounce weights should remain COMPLETELY on the wheel's descending side during the entire 45 degree interval of rotation. Also very importantly, ALL 8 of the weighted levers will have the SAME orientations at the end of the interval of rotation as they had at the beginning.
To be continued...
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/sascension.jpg
ReplyDeleteJust finished the "draping" of the upper half weighted levers in my "75 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" model wheel and it is looking VERY good so far.
ReplyDeleteI immediately noticed that the newly modified "magic" lever causes the 12:00 and 1:30 weighted lever weights to be located, horizontally, farther onto the descending side from a vertical line passing through the center of the wheel's axle at a bit closer to their respective rim stops. That is good because it will help to compensate for the 7:30 weighted lever whose weight is now located a bit farther from that vertical line through the axle's center onto the wheel's ascending side. With two weights farther out on the descending side and only one farther out on the ascending side, the net effect should be a CoM of all of the wheel's eight 1 ounce weights being located farther out on the descending side!
I've got to have dinner now and then take a break...been putting up last minute Christmas decorations all afternoon and I'm bushed. Next year I will be stringing no more lights outside on trees, hedges, and bushes while enduring a wind chill of 30 degree Fahrenheit. I will simply tack thin white linen sheets over the front picture windows and then use a collection of slide projectors to project various Christmas scenes on them at night for passerbys to "oooh and "aaah" at. The projectors will each be programmed to automatically change the scenes they project ever 30 seconds or so. Total setup time MUST be under ONE hour and done completely from INSIDE a nice warm house!
Anyway, I hope to have the results of the static test to determine the location of my current 36 inch diameter virtual wheel's CoM later tonight or early tomorrow. Feeling confident at the moment that I can break the 0.20000 inch horizontal displacement "barrier".
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/kbrcprivate.jpg
ReplyDeleteWho is Ken?
ReplyDeleteTechnoguy
Deletevincent, some are obsessed that tg is the legendary ken b. I really doubt that. On a fanatical devotion to the subject scale of 0 to 10, tg is probably only about 8 while ken b. (known as "the volcano") was a solid 73!
Delete99.9% sure Technoguy was known on the Besslerwheel Forum as this guy:
Deletehttp://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1538
Vincent and the Anonymous,
DeleteMany of the writing, literary and attitudinal characteristics of this blog's resident pest, @technoXXX, are rather similar to those of the BWF banned Behrendt, one being a creepy, seeming persistent disinterest in how he appears to others as a "person". (Meaning, as big-headed and overbearing, and assuming that all desire to know so much of his mundane "life", of computer modeled "building".)
I don't know but, has @technoXXX ever actually denied being Behrendt? If not, this would be a sure clue as to something, at least; if so, even more.
Behrendt lives (or, lived) in the North East. A search of Behrendt's stuff over on BWF will reveal the actual state. As I recall it was in New Jersey or some minor State like that.
The sure-shot part is that BOTH (there I go again!) adhere to the cracked-pot atomic level explanation, as a supposed source for any proposed motive force (energy) to be seen. They each held/hold onto it for dear life.
I've noticed that Behrendt's on-line published things are quite well written, better than his alter ego does here, generally. "The Cosmic Vault" has some. (I recommend Behrnedt's one on the Great Seal of the United States. Most interesting and well done. Kudos!)
This is quite an interesting puzzle as well as problem.
I do hope that correspondents here will just eventually grow weary of being abused with endless fluff and meaningless over-detail, and just start to ignore him.
(I'd better get my "Ignore" button fixed.)
James
actually, james, were getting weary of your constant troll like rantings about technoguy and ken behrendt which are usually full of factual errors. behrendt was not banned from bwf and tg's 'cracked-pot atomic level explanation' for where the energy of a pm wheel comes from is the most logical one Ive read so far on the web. if you have a better explanation then lets see it. put up or shut up!
DeleteGood news soon!
ReplyDeleteWell, we're all certainly hoping you've finally found something that works. That is just the kind of "good news" that PM land desperately needs now.
DeleteDo please keep us informed of the results whether good or not so good.
Best of luck with the construction and testing.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteIn an effort to hurry things along since there are now less than 48 hours 'til Christmas, I decided to complete BOTH the static AND motor assisted testing of my "75 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" model wheel design with the hope of being able to deliver some "joyous" news on the big day. Sadly, based on this morning's test results that is not meant to be...at least not with THIS particular "right track" model.
Things got off to a "bad" start right from the beginning. After "draping" of the model's upper half weighted levers was completed, I ran the static test to determine how far, horizontally, onto the wheel's descending side the CoM was projected. It was only 0.13000 inches...FAR less than the 0.20000 minimum I was hoping for and, in fact, one of the lowest values I've seen so far!
When the motor assisted tests of the fully interconnected active weighted levers was run, I, once again, only got the "Bessler Effect" VERY late in the interval of wheel rotation and that was only by using a very high k value of 1.25 lbs/inch on my model's primary and secondary springs (note that each secondary spring in an actual real wheel would be made from two parallel primary springs) which, in the full size Merseburg wheel corresponds to a k value of 20 lbs / in. (which is rather high). Worst of all, although I got a "Bessler Effect", it was a "weak" one and at the end of the 45 degree interval of motor assisted rotation, the weights did not resume the same configurations with respect to each other that they had at the beginning of the interval! Definitely NOT a good sign.
The results were very disappointing and, once again, it's obvious that my 9:00 going to 10:30 position weighted lever is not being properly counter balanced by the weighted levers and springs attached to it. It seems that it must be rendered effectively weightless THROUGHOUT the entire angle that the weighted lever swings CW through in order to be able to display an early "Bessler Effect". It's a real shame because I really thought that the newly modified "magic" lever would make a serious difference this time.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I am considering trying the newly modified "magic" lever with a "Contact AFTER 3:00" wheel design. Yes, yes, I know that I previously swore that I was through with such designs, but, since I have the "source" wheel already made that uses the new lever modification, it is a simple matter to pin it's 4:30 weighted lever against the wheel and then "drape" the weighted levers lagging it until that 9:00 weighted lever assumes a certain angle with respect to a horizontal line passing through its pivot. Then I can quickly do the static test to determine where the CoM of the model's eight 1 ounce weights is located and, most importantly, how far out onto the wheel's descending side the CoM projects horizontally. Most likely, it will be even less than 0.13000, but I've got to give it a try just so I won't feel like I did not consider every possibility. However, if the "Contact AFTER 3:00" design does break the 0.20000 inch horizontal projection distance "barrier", then that will be VERY "good" news because that means I'll have high torque AND the gravitational potential energy / mass lost during an interval of rotation by an EXTRA CW swinging weighted lever (the one whose pivot travels from the 3:00 to 4:30 position of the wheel) to use in helping to lift that 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted lever and, hopefully, produce an "early" Bessler Effect.
I wish I had better news to report...but, maybe, it's still not too late to put a nice brightly wrapped gift into everyone's Christmas stocking THIS year! I'll give it a shot.
What if the last chance before Christmas "75 Degree 7:30 / Contact AFTER 3:00" model wheel also disappoints? Well, I'll cross that "little" bridge IF and WHEN I come to it!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS EVERYONE!
PART I:
ReplyDeletePreviously, I wrote: "What if the last chance before Christmas "75 Degree 7:30 / Contact AFTER 3:00" model wheel also disappoints? Well, I'll cross that "little" bridge IF and WHEN I come to it!"
Quite sadly, I encountered THAT particular bridge only a few hours ago and the toll to cross it may be a VERY high one, indeed!
I set up the required weighted lever configuration for a "75 Degree 7:30 / Contact AFTER 3:00" model wheel and then ran a quick static test on it to see how far, horizontally, onto the descending side of the wheel the CoM of its eight 1 ounce weights projected. Did it break the 0.20000 inch "barrier"? NO! In fact, it did not even break the 0.10000 inch "barrier"!!!
This design only projected the CoM about 0.08200 inches onto the descending side and CLEARLY is NOT the configuration that Bessler found and used. Once I saw this, I did not waste any more time with further testing.
Thinking back, it was the "90 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" model wheel that gave me the maximum horizontal projection onto the descending side of the CoM of its 8 weights which was a distance of about 0.22000 inches and which, in a 12 foot diameter wheel, would be a distance of 0.88000 inches and could produce torques comparable to what the Merseburg wheel produced. This was the "Contact BEFORE 3:00" design that had the 6:00 going to 7:30 weighted levers arriving at the 7:30 position in a perfectly vertical orientation with the weights hanging directly below the levers' pivots. Although motor assisted testing of the design showed that it was not delivering the "Bessler Effect" early in the interval of drum rotation, the upper half weighted levers (with pivots at the 10:30, 12:00, 1:30, and 3:00 drum positions) were stable in the configuration with a primary spring constant or k value that was not so high as to prevent the levers from becoming vertical at 7:30.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteSo, I've decided that I am going to return to this design again and try to figure out some way to make its 9:00 going to 10:30 position weighted levers give me that early "Bessler Effect" that I MUST see if the CoM is to STAY on the descending side THROUGHOUT a 45 degree interval of drum rotation. How to do this will be the major focus of my ongoing research for the immediate future.
One way to achieve this would be to, effectively, GREATLY lower if not eliminate the weight of the 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted lever's weight as its pivot travels between those two positions. From making very careful measurements, I learned that weighted lever must rotate CW through about 22.5 degrees (which, interesting is exactly HALF of 45 degrees!) so Bessler must have found some way of using the primary and secondary springs attached to each of his weighted levers to nearly perfectly counter balance the 9:00 going to 10:30 position weighted levers. That means that the counter balancing of these weighted levers was NOT primarily accomplished by the tensions applied to them by the weighted levers lagging and leading it. Those weights DID apply SOME tension (through their interconnecting cords) to the 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted lever, but that tension mostly served to move the lever along or just "coordinate" its required motion during the 45 degree interval of drum rotation.
So, how was it done? Once again, "the Devil is in the details"! Bessler found some simple, yet VERY tricky, way of using the primary and secondary springs attached to each weighted lever to achieve this when the weighted levers' pivots were traveling between a CW rotating drum's 9:00 and 10:30 positions. This method IS illustrated with DT portrait clues, but, unfortunately, the resolving power of my Bessler "eyeglasses" is not YET powerful enough for me to locate and PROPERLY interpret the clues (such improvements ONLY come with MUCH building / modeling and testing). But, they ARE there. They HAVE to be IF the portraits were intended to be a symbolically encrypted schematic for resurrecting Bessler's design and securing him his rightful place in history.
I've already started intensifying my study of the two portraits and have found yet another VERY interesting little clue in the first DT portrait (Why do I find this so much more pleasant to do than standing on a ladder with a cold wind whipping past me as I string Christmas lights along the rain gutters of my home? Though, admittedly, the effect is rather spectacular at night!). So, instead of the promised brightly wrapped Christmas gift of an announcement of the rediscovery of THE OB PM gravity wheel design Bessler found and used inserted into everyone's fireplace hung stockings, I can only, for the time being, leave this little clue and its interpretation as a substitute.
PART III (Yes, a new record for me!):
ReplyDeleteLook at the first of the two DT portraits. Note the big book on the table in front of Bessler. It's orientation indicates that it represents the 10:30 weighted lever inside of one of his wheels. In past blog entry comments I provided an interpretation of this symbol and also showed how the other objects on the table can be interpreted as representing the weighted levers both lagging (such as the 7:30 and 9:00 position ones) and leading (such as the 12:00, 1:30, and 3:00 ones) the 10:30 position weighted lever represented by the book.
Once this interpretation is made, it SEEMS like Bessler is telling us that the 10:30 weighted lever is being SOLELY held in place by the counter balancing (through interconnecting cords) effects of those other weighted levers. BUT, one must study the book a bit more carefully!
If one draws in the four sides of the book's top cover, he finds that the cover is NOT a rectangle. It's easy to dismiss this irregularity as just due to Bessler's clumsy attempt to distort the shape of the cover a bit to allow for proper perspective in the portrait. But, the degree of distortion is so extreme and actually so much ruins the perspective that one can only conclude that this "irregularity" was done ON PURPOSE. What was that purpose?
Simple. To draw the viewer's attention to the book's cover.
The mathematical center of a rectangle is determined by taking the intersection point of two straight lines, each of which passes through diagonally opposite corners of the rectangle. One can also do this with ANY quadrilateral figure such as a distorted rectangle. When you use this method to determine the exact mathematical center of the cover in the first DT portrait, you will make an interesting discovery.
Once the point is located, extend a straight line vertically upward from it. Keep extending it and you will find that it passes through the EXACT tip of Bessler's nose. But, keep extending it and you will also find that it passes EXACTLY through the centers of the end loops of TWO curls near the center part of Bessler's wig. I'm not sure of the significance of the line passing through the tip of his nose is yet...it could represent a pivot point of some sort. But, the line passing through the two curls is obvious. One of the curls is in front and the other is in back. One curl represents a primary spring and the other a secondary spring.
Bessler is telling us with this clue that TWO springs, a primary and a secondary, had to be connected to the 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted lever and working TOGETHER in order to effectively lower the weight of its weight.
Now all that remains is to find out HOW this "simple" little trick with the two springs was done.
DeleteIt's not bad enough that you "see" clues in the most meaningless details and are driven by your uncontrolled compulsion to "share" them with a captive audience that isn't even your own, or that you have shown by your explanations of your design that you have little understanding of mechanics and physics ["... which, in a 12 foot diameter wheel, would be a distance of 0.88000 inches and could produce torques comparable to what the Merseburg wheel produced ..." and also "... the 'innate' energy / mass was extracted from the weights within one of Bessler's wheels and used to power some outside piece of machinery ..."] - now you have proven that you are nothing less than an out and out LIAR !!
On the "Could scientists solve Bessler's wheel - ..." blog comments,
I wrote (Anonymous 18 December 2012 03:24):
"To be continued? That's all we need, to start seeing PART III, PART IV..."
You/Ken/Technoguy wrote:
"I will not be posting any comments that are more than two parts."
and today, you write:
"PART III (Yes, a new record for me!)"
Let's not forget the time that you had sworn that you would no longer post comments with your 'decryption' of the DT Portrait clues.
-------------------------
You repeatedly (ad nauseam) claim to know "the one and only" design that Bessler used accomplish a self turning wheel, which is not only contrary to Bessler's own writings, but is IMHO, a slap in the face to your host, Mr. John Collins.
You have stated that "if" you can get the simulation program to prove that your design "works", that that would be good enough for you. That it wouldn't matter whether or not anyone could truly prove it with a physical build, you would have your "proof" and you wouldn't care what anyone else thinks.
As far as I'm concerned, you have lost any and all credibility.
Your posts are a total waste of time and bandwidth.
And BTW - You can forget defending yourself by claiming that I'm a "No Track" armchair philosopher. My build is closer to running than yours could ever be. No, I don't need to share the details now just to prove it to you. You'll see it soon enough.
Anonymous wrote:
Delete"You repeatedly (ad nauseam) claim to know "the one and only" design that Bessler used accomplish a self turning wheel, which is not only contrary to Bessler's own writings, but is IMHO, a slap in the face to your host, Mr. John Collins."
You are quite RIGHT! I DO claim to be working on THE design that Bessler found and used which I refer to as his "right track" design. I have dedicated myself to finding a SINGLE design that will make sense of the MANY VALID mathematical clues in the two DT portraits as well, of course, as the various text clues in the Bessler literature. My work is not meant to insult either JC or anyone else here and I have repeatedly wished ALL here the best of luck in finding a PM design that works and I always try to encourage them to discuss, in general terms, what they are working on so that we can discuss the merits of their approach. Unlike me, a mobilist who finds a DIFFERENT design from THE one that Bessler found and used will be joining a VERY exclusive club that, so far, only contains TWO people: Bessler and Asa Jackson. I, however, if I manage to rediscover THE design Bessler found and used, will NOT be joining that club because I am only resurrecting a design that someone else, Bessler, found.
Whoever you are, I wish YOU the BEST of luck with your current build. ANY success in this field would be BIG news and worthy of celebration. After studying the available data on Jackson's wheel, I now accept that there ARE OTHER ways of achieving PM and I hope that you have found one.
BTW. While feasting on Christmas dinner, I suddenly realized that the "Center of Cover / Tip of Nose Clue" in the 1st DT portrait probably does not indicate that the 9:00 going to 10:30 position weighted levers were being rendered effectively weightless by the combined actions of a primary and secondary spring. Rather, this clue probably means that the weighted lever was being rendered weightless by TWO secondary springs that were NOT in parallel to each other! I'm now focusing my research into finding that unique arrangement of springs. It will require MUCH building and testing.
How are you set for sulphur and salt, because surely you've had enough of that third thing again, huh?
ReplyDeleteJohn ,
ReplyDeleteYou can be both ; correct in your advocacy and incorrect in your theory of how the wheel was structured . By the way , people will be much more tolerant of your view if you produce a working wheel . Furthermore , I'd like to point out that from time to time you seem to be speaking to those people who are skeptical about gravity as a force ( if they were suddenly without it they would then recognize it as a force ) and not to us folks actually reading your blog ( who already recognize gravity as a force ) .