Monday, 30 July 2012

The Perpetual Motionists are not the same as we Bessler-wheelers.

An article in support of we perpetual motionists was brought to my attention by my good friend James, at an extremely apposite moment as I had already written this short piece for my next blog.  The article was entitled, "Why do They Ridicule Perpetual Motion and Hate the Perpetual Motionists?”

I enjoyed the article even if I did not completely accept his many arguments in support of us.  But his use of the word perpetual motioionists was what I objected to and which prompted me to write about the use of this term.

It has been a a matter of mild concern for me for a number of years, this habit of calling us perpetual motionists.  Such labels do us no favours in my opinion, because the very term, perpetual motion, suggests a degree of naivety in us, which is untrue; most of us are experienced and knowledgeable about the world of physics and in particular mechanics.  Perpetual motion means literally, continuous motion or activity, which of itself is quite accurate.  The problem lies in people's associations of the term Perpetual Motionists with Creationists,  Flat Earthers and other pseudosciences  which then attracts the unwelcome attention of the sceptics, the scornful and their derisory comments.  But there are reasons for their contempt for our work.

Perpetual motion implies self-perpetuating motion  which in its turn, suggests that the motion is derived from some inexaustable inner energy source, which is factually and theoretically impossible. The energy has to come from somewhere and since it's impossible to store unlimited energy within a confined space, it must come from outside.  But because so little was known about gravity (and still is) no-one could offer an explanation which would show how it might assist in this continuous motion.

Because continuous motion has to have an external supply of energy, such a term could also imply that combustion engines which require an external continuous supply of energy in the form of petroleum are also perpetual motion machines; and electric motors too, as long as they are supplied with electricity; and steam engines as long as they have steam.  They are all perpetual motion machines apparently, all moving continuously as long as they have the fuel necessary to their action.

We usually call engines by a name which includes their energy source, so we have steam engines, petrol engines, diesel engines, electric motors etc.  We could call Bessler's wheel a gravity engine or motor, or a gravity wheel, but then we come up against those who say that, unlike, petrol, diesel and electricity, gravity is not an energy source. In fact those so-called energy sources I mentioned, steam, petrol, diesel and electricity are not by themselves energy sources.  They each require a combination of effects to occur at the right moment to generate the power associated with them, and the same applies to gravity.  Without those other energy sources working together with other combinations they wouldn't provide energy either and without gravity, Bessler's wheel would not work.  We need gravity to enable the weights to fall, and it is then up to us to find a way to generate continuous rotation from that initial fall.

BUT.... there is one major difference between the ones I mentioned above and gravity.  They are each fed into their specific machine via pipe or cable; gravity, on the other hand, is present everywhere both inside and outside the gravity wheel. Why do I think it iks still possible to make use of gravity to drive a gravity wheel? The answer as always, lies in analogy.  I have from time to time likened the action of gravity to the force of the wind.  Wind is also everywhere about the windmill and it is the blades of the windmill which are moved by the wind and so it is with gravity, the weighst are moved by its force.   

So deride perpetual motionists if you wish but don't lump us Bessler-wheelers together with them.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Thursday, 26 July 2012

July 2012 Update

The hot weather has arrived at last, just in time for the Olympics, but sunshine means I have some catching up to do in the garden, however at least the rain gave me an opportunity to do some work on my wheel.  

The last piece of the jigsaw dropped into place a few weeks ago and I am confident that this model will work. Oddly enough it was the failure of the mechanism to act as I wanted it to do, that led me to the final piece of the puzzle - and to the revelation of one of Bessler's clues that has somewhat mystified me over a considerable length of time.  I should know by now that Bessler habitually used his clues to either contain two ways to access them, or two different clues.  I am make an adjustment to the design which will create the movement I've been seeking.  I don't know how long it will take to complete, but not long.

There is a slight variation to the parts used compared to the last time I described them, but the basic concept remains the same, plus of course the secret principle which I'm not ready to share yet. 

So there are five mechanisms operating according to the way a swing works or 'kiiking' or parametric oscillation, if you prefer.  As I've mentioned before, this concept of using the mechanics of the swing was suggested  to me by professor Hal Puthoff as a way forward, some years ago and I subsequently found the idea introduced on the Besslerwheel forum by Scott Ellis way back in 2002, and if I'm proved right, due credit should go to them.  

The swing mechanics are only part of the solution and in addition to what I have called the secret principle there is also one more ingredient which is the one I have added in the last couple of months. So the mechanisms are almost all complete and testing should begin within a couple of weeks and any delay is down to getting the final adjustment right. Bessler himself commented that when he 'constructed my greatwork, the 6-ell diameter wheel (the Merseberg wheel). It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted.'

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Monday, 23 July 2012

Bessler's stressed life.

I was looking at Bessler's portrait and I noticed the condition of his nails.  They all appear to be bitten down very short.  I assume this is an accurate portrayal and the poor condition of the nails is probably a symptom of the ever-present stress in his life.  At that time, some four years or so had passed since his first discovery of the secret of gravity-enabled wheels and yet he had nothing to show for it.  He had moved three times and built three wheels, and smashed them to pieces, and suffered the increasing attempts to have his reputation destroyed by his bitter enemies, Gärtner, Borlach and Wagner.

A brief search on the subject reveals that onychophagia, or nail biting, is a common compulsive habit.  It's believed to be a symptom of stress, and in severe cases is accompanied by anxiety attacks, palpitations of the heart, headaches, dizziness and sweating.

When paranoia is included, as seems to have been the case with Bessler, typically the subject has obsessive thoughts and will harbour suspicions and worries about other people.  They believe that something bad will happen, and that others are responsible, and although their belief may be exaggerated, the central thought which is present with paranoia is a sense of threat.

Bessler himself admits that he was sometimes depressed and axious and apparently anxiety and depression can act as triggers for paranoid thoughts in some people. If they’re anxious they are likely to be on edge and more fearful than normal. Depression can lower self-esteem, and make them more likely to misinterpret other people’s intentions towards them. They are afraid that their enemies, as they perceive them, mean them financial harm, stealing from them, damaging their property or tricking them into giving away their money.

I'm no psychologist but I think that is a close match to Bessler.

PS Update on my wheel building to follow soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Thursday, 19 July 2012

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...are best ignored.

I wrote this to remind me of the heat of my angry reaction to the jeers and sneers I suffered in the early days - but on this day, in the cool of early dawn such gibes seem of little consequence and are best ignored.

I used to surf the net looking at comments about Bessler and it was clear then, and nothing has changed, that very few people know any details about him nor about the evidence which has convinced most of us here that he was genuine.  I read many comments to the effect that we were all wasting our time in trying to prove that he was not a con man.  Other remarks said that we had forgotten or never learned the true facts about gravity, force and friction etc.  But in fact I had a good education and since I left school I continued to learn and try to understand everything I could about the subject and yet I still believe Bessler was genuine because my training as an engineer convinces me.  So instead of merely claiming that Bessler was not a con man, I have tried to explain his success within current scientific laws.

I would describe the tenor of some of the comments as scornful laughter at our stupidity.  A common remark was that history is full of con-men like Bessler, attempting to defraud their investors and customers with promises of perpetual motion. At that time I used to be a regular on Jerry Decker's old keelynet forum, (http://keelynet.com/) one contributer called me a snake-oil salesman, a predictably offensive term but one I had to look up at the time, as I hadn't come across it before.  I checked and it's "a derogatory term used to describe quackery, the promotion of fraudulent or unproven medical practices. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with questionable and/or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, the term snake oil salesman may be applied to someone who sells fraudulent goods, or who is a fraud himself," thanks to wikipedia.  Frankly that is quite an offensive comment given that I am not trying to defraud anyone.

So when this is all over and the proof is out there for every one to see - that is, Bessler wasn't a fake and he really did have a continuously turning wheel - how many of those hardened sceptics will apologise for their contemptuous, disdainful comments which made myself and others who support Bessler's claims, feel despicable and unworthy?  Of course the answer is none, because they could only judge us on what they knew, and little of Bessler's work has filtered through and what has, has had to compete against the mainstream science which teaches us that Bessler's claims violate the laws of science.  But I look forward with tremendous enthusiasm and a certain amount of gloating, to the day when it becomes apparent that they were all wrong, and we are owed an enormous apology and a meek admission that they should not have been so patronising, smug and just plain obnoxious.

So I used to get all fired up by the nastier comments directed towards me but now I just let it pass me by and I rarely get into an argument with anyone because the only way to persuade them to see my point of view is for someone, anyone, to produce a working version of Bessler's wheel - and I think that will happen very soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Monday, 16 July 2012

Does size matter? And other questions about Bessler's wheel.

Bessler said, [paraphrased here] that he could make his machines in such a way that, big or small, he could make the resulting power small or big as he chose. He could get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. I was thinking about that and I guess the obvious ways to increase speed and/or power would include using more mechanisms within one wheel, or increasing the size of the wheel, and using more wheels on the same axle.  But I wonder what effect increasing the size of each weight would have?

Would it increase the wheel's speed or would it just provide more power or torque at the same speed?  More speed doesn't necessarily lead to more torque but more weight should increase it.

How would you increase speed without increasing the size of the weights?  Adding another wheel would effectively increase the size of the weights, but if you halved their size and used two wheels on one axle I wonder what if anything, the resultant change in speed might be?  Having double the number of mechanisms should have an effect on speed.

Increasing the size of the wheels but using the same weights suggests that the distances travelled by the weights within the wheel might generate more speed but would it produce more torque?  In theory yes, because the weights might be applying their mass at a greater distance from the axis. On the other hand although more speed might be possible would the greater distances travelled by the weights actually have a slowing effect when compared to a smaller version?

I realize we need to know what the design of the mechanisms were in order to know what the answers to the questions would be, but sometimes asking questions helps us make progress in discovering something about the nature of the mechanisms.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Friday, 13 July 2012

Do you show signs cognitive dissonance?

Yesterday at last, I managed to find some time to work on my project.  I am using my own interpretations of Bessler's clues, as will anyone who is trying to build Bessler's wheel, and those interpretations can be viewed as being highly subjective as opposed to objective.  By that I mean that these interpretations are in the end just an opinion whereas objective ideas are factual and provable.  But at some point my subjective opinions will become objective and true, I hope!  
Of course such opinions as I hold are biased because they are arrived at through a succession of revelations relating to the supposed clues I have found.  But because an objective piece of information needs to be factual and unbiased my view and the expression of my ideas can't be anything other than subjective.  So until I can either produce a working model or publish a complete explanation of my ideas, I can't give out any objective information until I've finished building my wheel.

Obviously I think I'm right or I wouldn't bother building the wheel, but discussing them here does not seem advisable as it would take too long to explain how I got to where I am. If I did try a shortened explanation it would miss the sequence of discoveries which confirm my interpretations are correct.  Some months ago I began to write a detailed document and I planned to put out a video with pictures and some filming to explain my reasoning, but sadly I haven't had time to continue with this but I shall get back to work on it as soon as possible.

As I have continued along this path I have discovered numerous additional clues which confirm what were previously just my interpretations of some clues.  When the full explanation comes out in due course I think people will amazed at the number of unarguable clues, found everywhere within his works, and I'm not only referring to the number 5.

An acquaintance who is a psychologist, told me that I exhibited typical signs of cognitive dissonance because on the one hand because I had been taught that gravitywheels were impossible and I believed it, but on the other hand I was trying to prove that they were possible and potentially valuable machines and this was causing me some conflict.  I had to look it up to understand what he was getting at.

Apparently if you hold two or more opposing ideas or beliefs it causes you discomfort.  Mountain climbers know the risk of death is ever present but they continue to climb; smokers continue to smoke even though they know it may kill them eventually.  To relieve the discomfort caused by these conflicting beliefs, we all attempt to reduce the dissonance by altering existing beliefs, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.

That psychologist made me feel as if I was someone who suffered from some kind of weird rare psychological delusion and might be a step away from the madhouse!  But the fact of the matter is that I don't feel any discomfort with my apparently dissonant beliefs, so either I have succeeded in altering my existing beliefs or I've reduced their importance.  

I think the former has occurred, but it shows you what a load of old tosh these so-called experts spout from time to time. According to him we all show signs of cognitive dissonance! Of course there are some who think my attic's a little dusty....  

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Priorities

Little comment has appeared regarding the string of letters and numbers after my posts but several emails have queried their point and some good guesses have been made, so I have decided to explain their purpose - and I suppose in a way this is another clue.

In a letter to Leibniz in 1677, to try to ensure his priority in his work on calculus, Sir Isaac Newton,wrote:- “I cannot proceed with the explanation of the fluxions now, I have preferred to conceal it thus: 6accdae13eff7i3l9n4o4qrr4s8t12vx”.

The string of letters and numbers shows how many times each letter appears, which produces an anagram and once rearranged gives:- “Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitates involvente, fluxiones invenire: et vice versa.” meaning, “Given an equation involving any number of fluent quantities, to find the fluxions, and vice versa.”

In 1610 Galileo Galilei, the Italian astronomer believed he had discovered two moons orbiting another Saturn.  He published the following anagram to ensure his own priority,"smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras". When rearranged, Galileo's secret message was, 'Altissimum planetam tergeminum observavi', and translated reads,"I have observed the most distant planet to have a triple form", which related to his mistaking the rings around Saturn for moons. 

So... in order to try to establish my own priority in this matter, I have decided to post my own encoded information regarding something I discovered about eighteen months ago.  This discovery is not a theory but a well-established and easily demonstrated fact which I have tested to my own satisfaction. I have verified that Bessler himself used it in his machines and published encoded informaton about it.  I do not know if it is his 'connectedness principle' however, although it could be, but I have alternative possible candidate for that.

I did not make the discovery by deciphering Bessler's clues but purely by a combination of frustration and desperation at my lack of progress.  I am not claiming that this is an undiscovered concept so much as an overlooked one in this particular application.  The following code has been slightly modified from the previous ones but the resulting plaintext is identical:-

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

JC

Sunday, 8 July 2012

Any other applications for Bessler's wheel?

I suppose it's a bit premature to be considering such things but, there is a little negativity about how beneficial a working version of Bessler's wheel would be.  There is doubt about its capability to furnish an ordinary house with enough electricity to cover all its wants.  We won't know how practical that will be until we have a working one to play with, but there must be other uses which it would still be suitable for.  Here are some suggestions:-

Pumping water in arid areas where a low tech solution is needed.  Even without electricity, air conditioning might also be possible in hot climates, and commercial refrigeration and cold storage facilities seem obvious choices too.   Which leads on to my main point.  There must be other uses for the gravitywheel other than producing electricity for various uses. I wonder if it could be used to compress air?  Compressors are excellent alternatives to electricity for supplying energy to all manner of equipoment.

There may be a requirements for something to replace electricity either permanently or occasionally - something that used a relatively small amount of electricity but for extended periods of time - or moves very slowly and at length? 

Emergency lighting?  Conveyers? Irrigation? Ships? Trains? 

Any ideas or suggestions?

JC


10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10i1k12l3m6n14o14r5s17t1u6v5w4y4-3,1’1.

Friday, 6 July 2012

Maybe there weren't five mechanisms?

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

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

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

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

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10i1k12l3m6n14o14r5s17t1u6v5w4y4-3,1’1.

Sunday, 1 July 2012

My Wheel Update

I've managed to find time to restart work on my own version of Bessler's wheel.  I say my version, but if it works it will clearly be recognisable as having been derived from Bessler's clues, many of which I think you are all unaware of, as I haven't shared everything to date - unless some of you are working on the same clues in secret!

There are five mechanisms each consisting of two equal weights and some levers.  There are no cords or springs, just levers and weights.   

The design still relies on the concept of parametric oscillation and I cannot see any alternative if you accept that gravity alone drove Bessler's wheel. I specifically chose the Estonian sport of 'Kiiking' to demonstrate exactly how parametric oscillation works and it's really very simple.

A parameter is a quantity or mathematical variable that stays constant.  So if you have an oscillator such as a swing with fixed lengths it will swing to and fro until it stops, because all the parameters such as length, weight and gravity remain constant.  But if you alter the parameters at each swing stroke, as a child does on a swing by swinging its legs at the appropriate point, you continue the swinging motion. 

To obtain a variable in the parameters of kiiking, theoretically the person swinging has to raise his weight at two points during each revolution - and the same goes for the gravitywheel.  However in practice only one lift is required and the return of the person's mass to its former position in readiness for raising it again, can take place with the aid of gravity as long as it occurs in good time time for the subsequent lift.

There is an extra factor or concept which I discovered about 18 months ago, which overcomes the objections to a gravity-only wheel, but I don't want to share it yet.  Suffice to say that it throws out the window all the arguments about the viability of such devices.  

JC

The Legend of Bessler's Wheel and my latest Update

I'm putting the brief account of Johann Bessler's Wheel back up for a short time because I am concentrating on writing (rewriting!)...