Monday, 4 March 2013

Common misconceptions about Bessler's wheel.


There are three comments made in connection with Bessler's wheel which recur regularly; 

Firstly that Bessler's wheel has been proven not to work;

Secondly that his wheel would go against the laws that Sir Isaac Newton promulgated; 

And lastly that even if the wheel is successfully built we will never know whether it was the same solution as Bessler's.

With regard to the first one, Hermann Helmholtz presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiom. "a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible", therebye ruling out any chance of there ever being such a device admitted as a possibility.

He suggested that as no-one had ever successfully built one that worked, such machines must be impossible because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, could only be the Conservation of Energy - his own invention.

Those who don't believe Bessler's wheel could have been genuine are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible.  Thanks to Besslerwheel forum for the above concise explanation.

In the case of the second point, that Bessler's wheel would defy the laws that Sir Isaac Newton presented, that is also wrong.  To even suggest that if Bessler's wheel works it will throw out of the window everything that Newton discovered is uttlerly incredible.  It is perfectly obvious that Bessler's wheel would have to comply with the known laws of physics - the alternative is too big a stretch of credulity to accept.  So how would Bessler's wheel fit comfortably among Newton's laws?

I believe that I have the solution to that problem but it is not proven and until I have demonstrated what I believe will be the answer to reconstructing Besslers wheel I cannot say anything about the reason why it won't conflict with any of the laws of physics, Newtonian or later.  As some will know, I have condensed the solution into a single sentence which I include after every post in the form of an encoded anagram.

As for the last point, that we shall never know if our solution is the same as Bessler's, I would strongly dispute that.  If my own research results in a working wheel I shall be able to point to the method I used to develop the right design taken directly from Bessler's clues, both textual and graphic.

I have finally got my workshop back and will begin work on my 'solution' as soon as I practically can. :)

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

77 comments:

  1. Good luck!
    I agree totally with your first and third statement, but have to think about your second statement. Some laws of physics needs to be changed, it may not be Newtons laws of motion.

    And a litle advice: Remeber it was Bessler who said that Wagner (or who it was) would not be able to get a wheel running, because as the weights give a downward impetus, another weight will give an oposite and equal upward impetus. Read carefully and you will see that this is Bessler saying that this is the reason Wagner (and others) will fail. This is NOT Bessler describing his own principle, (as many tend to believe!) so we must read that there was an unequal amount of downward and upward impetus in Besslers wheel. And yes it is!

    Regarding me agreeing to point 3:
    Do you think Bessler would give somebody the opertunity to steal his envention and not be able to go in to his publications and PROVE that he was the inventor. not likely.
    Do you think he waould write that he should take a patent on his principle in 1717, and directly lie in public writing ? Why would he?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi John,
    I spent 6 years working on this full time, and I know it is possible. Right now I am working on bringing another invention to market so I can continue with the pursuit of the wheel. I think that all these reasons against "perpetual motion" are silly, given that a gravity wheel is NOT perpetual motion, it has a energy source running it, GRAVITY, perpetual motion says it runs its self, I know Bessler called it that, but he was wrong there. Given that, citing the laws of thermodynamics as a reason it won't work is foolish since you are not braking them. I believe the the wheel uses the present laws of physics, but in a different way, or a particular way, to achieve imbalance and run, making almost all arguments against it irrelevant. I don't think that calling it "perpetual motion" helps the case for the possibility of the working gravity wheel. Whether or not it is the same as Besslers is not an issue either, in my opinion, if it works, it works , Bessler still led the way. There may be a hundred or thousands of designs that work and he found one. Maybe the principle he discovered can be applied several different ways. Hope you or I find it soon. Bob

    ReplyDelete
  3. John, good luck! Alaskabobb put it very well indeed: the the wheel uses the present laws of physics, but in a different way, or a particular way, to achieve imbalance and run. I believe Bessler was not a liar and indeed found something novel, simple, and effective.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks guys, and good luck to you too, I'm sure you're all working on the problem yourselves.

    You may not be familiar with Dave Fishwick's 'Bank of Dave', look it up on google - his motto is 'NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER EVER GIVE UP! Good advice.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      point taken about misconception three, what I, and probably several others forget is that whatever design we come up with, you are the source of the clues.
      They of course are Bessler through and through.
      I bet most had never heard of him until stumbling across your site whilst checking out free energy devices.
      My spellchecker even underlines Bessler!
      By the way, your remote viewing report is still on the B.W. website.

      Changing the subject slightly, I sadly realized why although Bessler may have sold his wheel in Europe, it would have been difficult to sell it in the W.Indies, and the southern parts of what is now the U.S. The old Errol Flynn movie, Captain Blood aired on the telly this afternoon, and a scene showed a big wheel lifting water to irrigate the plantation, at first I thought, Bessler's wheel could do that, and then the horrible thought crossed my mind, why bother when they had all the slave labour they wanted? I still feel sad thinking about it now.
      Sorry to be a bit down-beat, but unfortunately, slavery was a sad fact of Bessler's time period.

      Sorry again, Stephen Burke

      Delete
  5. I agree that a Bessler's wheel does not need to disobey Newton's laws.

    In my latest computer model (which has a single 10kg mass on a 4 meter arm, moving at a nominal 5 meters per second, and doing some other things strictly within Newton's laws) I can get a net energy output of 2.7 joules per revolution.

    To me, that result is beyond doubt, but it's not really good enough to start building a physical model yet. So I've been trying to augment it. After a lot of work I've ruled out two possibilties, but I have a third possibility that is still very much alive, for fairly high energy output.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, Arktos! Maybe a Peacock's tail... many arms slightly out of phase?

      Delete
    2. Andre, eventually I'll have as many arms and masses as can be accomodated, but I can analyse the basic principle with just one of each. Timing of various actions will indeed be critical.

      As well as the large example above, I also modelled a more reasonable one, with a 4kg mass moving at 2 m/s on a 0.4 meter arm. It delivers a truly pathetic 0.0404 joules per revolution in its unaugmented version. So I'm still working on augmenting the energy output, which I now know is possible, although finding the best approach is time consuming.

      Delete
  6. Primemignonite5 March 2013 at 04:39

    This is a really interesting subject for exploring.

    Thanks for conceiving it and introducing it to our notice, John.

    For any arguing, the Laws of Thermodynamics certainly are "circular" and worse-still, as another critic rather less kind but along this identical line put it, they are ones "incestuous"! (For this excitement bit see here: http://freespace.virgin.net/ecliptica.ww/book/perpetuum.htm )

    Doubtless-so, the physicists realize (that is when and if they condescendingly pay it any thought at all) that, in this area of circularity, they do tread upon rather thin ice for, with one spotting of a true perpetual motion as seen upon any horizon, they will be through it really nice and quick! Is it any wonder then that they - Scientism's high priests - are so touchy, paranoid, defensive and arrogant, on this subject generally?

    [Prof. D.E. Simanek (yes, HE of that naughty rant to be seen-still on his supposed "psychology" of P-M seekers page) contends that Newton's Laws of Motion really are only but one, it being comprised of the three parts usually cited separately. Interesting. This fellow knows his physics all right, no doubt but does seem somewhat 'iffy' as to issues of mind health, and their to-purpose "authoritative" defining, etc.]

    Yes. In some bosoms hope does spring-eternal (and for some reason really not fathomable by this writer) to the effect that - SURELY "no laws" are to be ever broken by a P-M materialization.

    (Ahem! Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?)

    Well, given that and much else of the like, when and if it does appear, then most will be disappointed in some way or another. So-be-it; whatever . . .

    No, laws will be "broken" (or cruelly bent) and splendidly-so to the greater purpose of revealing actual, effecting truths, rather than mere makeshift fantasies of physical, mechanically operative desire, as we presently endure and have now for more than three centuries. (Our burdened, put-upon and smeared forebears for this long, that is.)

    In light of such a glorious manifestation, all hobbling and hoary misconceptions of former shall be allayed . . . 'tiz only a matter of time not of whether. (Do we hear knees-anocking quite yet???)

    [Incidentally: My own approach to designing for any possibly existing motions-perpetual, is to conceive and construct an asymmetrically responding device; one such that would behave AS IF immersed in a non-conservative field of gravity, and then to respond accordingly producing continuous, rotatory motion, capable of doing useful work.

    According to the evidence as squarely/honestly examined, seemingly, this would be precisely what Bessler achieved, and so as a result, his device did work.

    Therefor, in-sum, designing for an asymmetrical sensitivity with respect to mystical gravitas, might well be the actual name-of-the-game?]

    Ciao!

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks James, for that link. Obviously the article is the originator of the brief quotes I obtained from the BW forum. I loved the following pieces:

      " ...if work is done, there must be some change of energy level in the system doing the work; and, conversely, if the energy at the start and at the end of the process is the same, then no work has been done", this applies to closed systems, but not where there is an ample supply of energy from gravity.

      and this piece which is where my other quote came from,

      "they (Physical Society of Berlin) remained quite unconvinced of the validity of the First Law of Thermodynamics until Helmholtz presented a formulation in 1847, beginning with an axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine was impossible.

      'Helmholtz originally said "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics"; while if one looks in any school physics text-book today one will find a statement analogous to "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible". That is the circular argument in a nutshell.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, nothing to do with this article as such, but I have just noticed something odd about the Apologia wheel.
      I was staring at the picture, thinking that it might be one of those persistence of vision things, when I must of gone cross-eyed or something, the picture separated into two wheels, but the right hand one was missing the top left white segment.
      I thought "unusual, wait a minute that makes five white sections, five again?"
      It's like the "sausage between two fingers trick" that kids do (did?).
      Another visual trick I have found is with the M.T. wheel of fifths, if you try to make patterns with the spokes for too long, your eyes flit from one pattern to the next, giving the illusion of movement, not rotation, but interesting all the same.

      Stephen Burke

      Delete
  7. Primemignonite5 March 2013 at 13:52

    My pleasure, John. I'm glad it proved to be of some use.

    I just went back to WikiPedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy and found that, the following that was there recently has now been REMOVED!

    "Most kinds of energy (with GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY being a notable exception)[10] are subject to strict local conservation laws as well. In this case, energy can only be exchanged between adjacent regions of space, and all observers agree as to the volumetric density of energy in any given space. There is also a global law of conservation of energy, stating that the total energy of the universe cannot change; this is a corollary of the local law, but not vice versa.[6][11] Conservation of energy is the mathematical consequence of translational symmetry of time (that is, the indistinguishability of time intervals taken at different time)[12] - see Noether's theorem."

    I have capitalized the very essence-of-interest-statement that is now no longer. I would have loved to know just what the nature of that "notable exception" might actually have been.

    Awhile ago now over at BWF, I posted a loud topic on this very thing but got no proposed explanations for it, only bafflement. Nevertheless, it did turn into lively and productive discussion.

    For any here that might be interested enough, hereat is the HISTORY of changes done there, on that page so rudely: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservation_of_energy&action=history

    My guess is that someone realized the exceeding possible embarrassment potential and decided TO ACT. Now, there is no footnote-the-tenth to be seen.

    Yes, just as you say there in your last sentence, but . . . to be cracked-STILL! (Hell Hornet Wagener!: are you listening from down there?)

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, I don't pretend to understand the technical stuff, but if you had a bicycle with the dynamo flipped on, let the bicycle roll downhill, is that not free energy from gravity? If only for a short while.

      Since I'm the only one who's posted a plan recently, may be the illuminati have picked up on it, let's hope they realize it's a runner! (lol)

      Stephen Burke

      Delete
    2. Just realized the expert's argument is, it took more effort to ride the bicycle uphill than you got out of it downhill, and we're trying to create an eternal downward slope,
      the penny has dropped! Sorry for the pun.
      Well, I believe that although slopes may not be eternal, gravity is, so let's use it!

      Stephen Burke (lola)

      Delete
  8. Primemignonite6 March 2013 at 00:02

    Hi Stephen Burke:

    Don't sweat the technical stuff. I don't myself all that much. It's just that, post an actualized working wheel, it well may serve to explain how it goes in light of the Big Official Rules or . . . not? In which case things could get really interesting - and hot if not.

    Apropos your example, yes, there are always those pesky losses to be endured. I suspect that Johann had real difficulties in this area, while working-out the necessary transfers of Ke between his gathering/imbalancing pendules.

    He mentioned about the use of springs at some place but, not as others were supposed to have thought, so say-ed he. Did he or did he not find out eventually, the optimal way of making such transfers or, were they all effected by the use of springs? (Heavens!)

    (So many questions with too-few answers.)

    What is your "plan" and where was it posted, Stephen???

    (In closing, I am surprised that this juicy topic of John's has not gotten more comments.)

    James



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, it's under the previous article "gravity is constant".
      26 Feb. 22-10, and 27 Feb. 21-06.
      Complete, with an agreement from J.C. !
      I did post it before, but in a Bessler like fit, I deleted it when I thought no-one was paying attention, except for the sarcastic anons.
      Basically, all I did was to cross the principles of a rubber band heat engine (a proven design) with the two most prominent clues from each of Bessler's sources.
      Instead of rubber bands, I used the lazy tong.
      See postings for more details.
      Check jesseenterprises.net/amsci/1971/04/1971-04-body.html to see what I'm on about.

      Tell me I'm crazy to think that figure 5 can be adapted to a mechanically operated Bessler's Wheel.

      If you think me mad, check out my posting above this one, about the Apologia Wheel,
      then you'll know I'm crazy!

      Stevo (Stephen Burke)

      Delete
    2. Primemignonite7 March 2013 at 06:34

      Stevo:

      Oh! I'll take a look there, also at the link to see . . . ? (Hmmm!)

      "If you think me mad, . . ."

      Well, I think we ALL must have at least one small screw a tiny bit loose, in order to pursue this noble and most elusive Chimera. Not a bigee.

      (And, I know I like the way you express yourself, SB. I am just slightly suspicious of ones that wax a bit too dispassionate always. This must be the French in me, desiring to burst-out.)

      James

      Delete
    3. James, there's another little quickie design of mine, March 1, 19:27(Gravity is constant)
      But, it was mainly to bolster Our Trevor, and to stop him from feeling despondent.
      However, on the Ralph Steiner video, there's a gadget that ratchets when the lever is moved both ways, so who knows?

      Stevo

      Delete
  9. Collins wrote: 'If my own research results in a working wheel I shall be able to point to the method I used to develop the right design taken directly from Bessler's clues, both textual and graphic.'

    From what little we know about Collins wheel (its been years that he's dangling this carrot before our noses) it violates what could be called the 'Tg Rule' which is that no wheel will be the exact same one Bessler had unless it agrees with the right interpretations of the 'vast sea' of clues in the two dt portraits. Since Collins and his pm cronies do not believe that the portraits contain any clues (other than two pentagrams he found after tg showed him where the second one was located) any thing he makes will not be using these clues and therefor can not be Bessler's wheel! This means to have a working wheel he must find a completely different design than Bessler's. Since there have only been two different working wheel designs in the 8000 year recorded history of the human race from the millions who tried to acheive it there's about as much chance of that happening as finding a snow flake in the middle of hell!

    I'm sure he knows that if he reveals a non runner along with a shaky as jello theory to 'explain' it the 'experts' in the pm 'community' will quickly slice it to ribbons while the less smart ones go for a cheap ego trip by hurling insults at him for his efforts. So to avoid that agravasion he will have to present a working wheel because nothing less will do. Unfortunately at the rate he works on his wheel (it's too cold, too hot, too cramped etc, etc, etc) and also having the enormous odds of finding a different than Bessler design that works against him I don't see him ever showing us anything here or elsewhere. But maybe he will prove me wrong and I hope he does.

    mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because TG and HIS crony (aka you) believe there are a bunch of clues in one real portrait of Bessler and another incomplete portrait of someone that has never been proven to have anything to do with Bessler, suddenly the only real design must follow these hair-brained clues? You might as well follow the clues you can find in your garden variety ink blots. And TG has vacillated on these so-called clues himself, so no clues for you!

      Only TG kept going on about two people in history solving PM, Bessler an Asa Jackson.

      Your regularity in pining over TG tells me you are either TG himself, an imbecile, or Jan Butler trying for a bigger payday.

      -Ed

      Delete
    2. Mike,

      Clearly you don't get it. TG had no followers here and so his rantings got old and tired and he thankfully left. Take a cue from TG and leave yourself. No one cares what you have to say about someone that no one cared about in the first place.

      Delete
    3. In the 8000 year recorded history of the human race from the millions who tried to achieve it ... only TG believes the portraits contain clues to the secret of Bessler's wheel. So what has that belief gotten him, NOTHING. He is no closer today than when he started. If he ever completes the wheel, he will have a weight shifter, a design known to be a balanced design at best.

      Delete
    4. The fact that TG never included the Keenie wheel (buzzsaw) in his list of working wheels shows how little he really knows his facts.

      Delete
    5. Mike/TG I wasn't going to dignify your comment with a response , however you give the game away - you are TG! You appear to have recently pored over every comment made since you first joined, I'm amazed you know so much about his words, unless you are him?

      Come on, be honest, it is you isn't TG!

      JC

      Delete
    6. Mike = TG = Ken

      Mercurius onustos, ergo sum

      ;-)

      -Ed

      Delete
    7. I am not tg or his crony (but wish I was!). I'm also not a builder (failed wood shop in hs) or blogger. I'm just an observer of the passing scene and read everything I can about pm and a few other subjects which are 'fringe' like pm. I have sort become tg's 'defender' here because of all the material I've read on Bessler only his had the kind of detail to convince me he is heading in the right direction or the 'right track' as he would say. For over a year (Aug 30th 2011 to Jan 8th 2013) I looked forward to his daily comments here and then wham they were gone in a day! I also don't like the way he was treated here when he was obviously very sincrely trying to present serious research and alert the pm 'community' to something very important that he had discovered which was a 'vast sea' of clues hidden in the two portraits. I can just imagine the kind of treatment a reincarnted Bessler would get here! Its interesting that in 300 years no one duplicated Bessler's wheels and in 300 years no one has ever studied the portraits as much as tg did. Seems like to much of coincidence to be a coincidence to me. If he says there are 'dozens' of clues in the portraits then I think he should be taken seriously and I certainly do. No one seems to be making anything that works with the 'clues' outside the portraits!

      If tg is right and only a wheel based on the correct interpretations of the many clues in the dt portraits will be the same as Bessler found then those ignoring this are virtually dooming themselves to failure since they are actually looking for another working design that is different than Besslers! Good luck with that which would be like trying to find one four leave clover somewhere in the amazon jungle! Although I can be very abrasive at times (especially when under troll attack), I actually do like Collins and hope he finds a working pm. But I also think he would like that success even more if he knew it actually was the same as Besslers. I continue to try to locate tg but have no luck so far.

      mike

      Delete
    8. So you don't think of yourself as a troll? Classic!

      And if there are no clues to be had in the portraits, then you are going in circles into a vast sea of ether! Maybe that's were you will find your energy then?!

      Delete
    9. "I continue to try to locate tg but have no luck so far"

      Then look in the mirror...

      Delete
  10. Good news & bad news,..My latest wheel came to a stop!Good news for the guys who would like to be first and bad news for me.
    All is not lost though because it put me on an new course which is even more credible.
    It will require a total re-design to the mechanics but it should be finnished in a day or two.
    I will not give up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to hear that Trevor,
      did you chill out, and check the websites I suggested?
      The mechanism are unusual, and you might just spot a useful widget for your new design.
      If not, they're still amusing anyway.

      Keep on keeping on.

      Stevo

      Delete
    2. Not to worry,the next design looks prommissing.It uses two weights and the essential use of a pendulum.

      Delete
  11. 18 February 2013 06:25
    It's basically built as of today , considering some changes to the mechanism.
    CW


    christo4_99 (Chris), it's been 16 days since your announcement. Where's the beef?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate to say this, but no news is usually bad news.

      Delete
    2. Don't give up on me ... I haven't . Things are getting better and better . My timeline was a little off ( lol ) but there was no other way to actually get to where I am now without some delay . I actually have a completely thought out design and a quite hypnotizing animation ( with (( hints )) Bessler's help ). The wheel and axle have been built for a while but my basic design has changed several times as my understanding has increased . It's funny what happens when you get serious about building something that works , in my case anyway . Bare with me !
      CW

      Delete
    3. Sorry for the delay but it seems to have been necessary ... and my design has changed over time as my understanding has increased . I have been really frustrated but somehow I always end up in the pink . I dare to think that if Bessler were alive he'd give me a good ol' pat on the back ... but it will be several more days ( although I feel I have planned and taken the design to it's limits ) before anything materializes . I will be here regardless .
      CW

      Delete
    4. You have already stated unequivocally that you have the solution so no one is giving up on you CW. Its just a matter of time, not if, right. Come on CW, who in their right mind would come out and make such a statement if they were not 100% sure. To put ones own credibility on the line like that would be the act of an insane person, or a complete liar and loser, so we have all the faith in the world in you. We know you would not do this to yourself.

      Delete
    5. CW said
      "...my basic design has changed several times as my understanding has increased..."

      This means your initial design was a failure, and yet you were positive that you knew the principle. Now that your understanding has increased, so you now have a new understanding of the principle. The simple fact is, you don't know the principle until you have a working wheel. Try to keep that in mind when you type your posts.

      Delete
  12. I am not going to post on this blog here again because I find reading it very boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny, that's what we think about your efforts.

      Delete
  13. Just to infuse some vigor...Even though Bessler wheel is very eluding it isn't actually impossible...the problem is in our wrong approach/belief system...we miserably fail to realize that we should begin with 8 weights instead of with 2 as stated by Trevor...though they work in pairs we need to understand that their collective unison is critical...another misconception is related to pinning our hope so much on the two portraits as done by TG...Bessler has revealed so much in his poems and other writings which are so much easy to comprehend...I would love to state much more here in this regard but I was terribly rebuked for it in the past...I wouldn't like to get into that situation again...Coming to our wrong belief systems again, it is extremely important to get it into our heads that it is not correct to think that there could be many ways to achieve what Bessler achieved...in fact, there is only one design which would work...the bessler design...and it won't be necessary to prove either that it is the same design built by bessler when someone actually comes up with one...another diverting cause is that sometimes we try to deviate by incorporating some other mechanism like electronics into the wheel build...this is like actually snubbing out the very essence...yet another demoralizing matter is that some of us blatantly criticize an actual fact given out by a promising contributor…Our focus is also disturbed when someone brings in a quite irrelevant matter for discussion...

    These are only a few of the negative things but there could be many more...This blog is supposed to be very interesting contrary to what Ealadha has stated...let us really make it more interesting by making necessary changes...TG was very adamant in not realizing that his long status reports actually worked against his genuine underlying talents...he should realize this...also, we should get him again into our folds considering his better part...

    This are just my perceptions and no offence is intended...

    kudos to this blog...

    Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  14. " we should begin with 8 weights instead of with 2 as stated by Trevor...though they work in pairs we need to understand that their collective unison is critical " ... explain " collective unison " ... are we talking water ballet or chorus line types of this ? Why eight weights ? Bessler said if you don't have the correct principle you can add all the weight you want and your quiet mill wheel will only get heavier .
    CW

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bessler said if you don't have the correct principle you can add all the weight you want and your quiet mill wheel will only get heavier .
    CW

    You are right CW and Bessler is also right...

    The correct principle is of paramount importance...that is the artful arrangement...it means the arrangement and the design of lever-weight attachment...

    We have to consider the complete circle that these attachments have to make around the axle...just two sets won't be able to go thru this loop...they may stop midway....tell me what is wrong in beginning with 8 weights? Ultimately, we require all the 8 wts anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Welcome back Suresh,..nice to hear that you still have an interest in the wheel.
    I feel that if you cannot get the wheel to turn with two weights tnen there is no point in adding more pairs because then they will just rob from each other and bring the wheel to a stop anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Trevor..My point is why to start with 2 wts when 8 wts are required...8 wts means more power...complete system...they are expected to support one another and they could rob from each other when only the arrangement is not proper...more hands will make work easy, won't they?

    Tell me where has bessler stated that one should begin with 2 wts..and why didn't bessler make a wheel with only 2 wts....we are dealing with PM...continuous motion...with 2 wts it is difficult to achieve a full circle motion around the axle...they would balance each other out and come to a standstill...it is things like this which hinder success...take it from me, even this year is going to go without a winner...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree fully Suresh,..Eight weights are certainly more powerful and continuous than one set of two.
      It sounds like Bessler started with one crossbar which would only hold two weights and even he stated that it seemed as if it could hardly turn at all.
      I would not bother with eight weights,which is a heck of a lot of work,until I know I have definitely got a working wheel.Does that not make sense.
      Believe me,I have tried eight weights right in the beginning,(6 years ago to be exact),and it is just as immovable as two.
      If you have two that turn then it makes sense that four or eight is definitely going to go much faster as Bessler commented.
      No offense intended.

      Delete
    2. When you have the correct principle you will know how many weights to use . It is not safe to assume , before you have even done the much required brain-work , how many weights are required . Do not assume that your design is correct either and it only needs " improvement " or " refinement " . Change it on a whim and you will eventually end up in a place where you have something to work with . This is my best advice .
      CW

      Delete
  18. This is not directed specifically at Suresh.

    What it really is extremely important to get into our heads is that it is not correct to think that we have superior knowledge of Bessler. It is important to stop telling everyone "facts" like there is only one design or you must use eight weights. These are things there is no proof of (and hearing *about* eight *sounds* is not proof of eight weights). If you want to relate Bessler information, at least site were it came from so either people know or you can be corrected if wrong.

    The only person who can reserve the right to talk like they have superior knowledge is the person with the actual working device and who carries on proving it.

    I agree with Trevor. Go with the minimum of what you think will work. Doing otherwise because it is what you think Bessler says is like following some religion, and the last thing we need is a bunch of people trying to convert us to their religion.

    Why don't we discuss useful things like what we think it would take to make a working device, or discuss past designs that failed because rubbish is often treasure to someone else and they might be able to make use of it.

    I'll start. Steve talks about a design using spring spokes. Its an interesting design and one I researched many years ago. MT12 is a similar design. What I learned from simulations and building is that the spring spokes lose too much energy unless they can be constrained in their motion. This is difficult but maybe Steve's use of scissors would work better. I don't know because he would need to show an image of his design or come up with a description easier to understand.

    Trevor's spring idea sounded interesting. Unless it got incorporated into his latest design, maybe he would care to discuss that?

    I don't think having discussions in the comments of John's blog is the best place. As soon as John posts a new item the discussions would be disrupted and John should be able to feel free to do so whenever he wants.

    -Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,..Do you not think these discussions help us to arrive at some form of consensus?
      I find that it helps to trigger the mind to more,fact it could send one on a whole new line of thought.
      Even if it is Ealadha that makes the comment!
      LOL.

      Delete
    2. I, too, started with eight weights (physical build) and found it quite immoveable, as well.
      With 2-3 weights you get to follow what is going on, and simulations are kinder as well. Also, when you start looking at oscillations and resonances, high multiples of the natural frequency perform worse then lower multiples. Considering that each segment would add to the frequency (according to witnesses it increased for 2-3 turns, then stayed at same frequency), then you don't want many small segments (eight segments in a wheel producing 8 times the natural frequency in one single revolution).

      Delete
    3. Ed said,"If you want to relate Bessler information, at least site were it came from so either people know or you can be corrected if wrong. "
      Well, the points used to build a Bessler wheel cannot be solely based on what Bessler actually stated...Because Bessler did not state everything…it is also quite well known that Bessler tried to convey facts in an indirect way or through analogues…under such circumstances it would be very difficult to quote Bessler in the right way…
      We don’t have much option here except to use our logic to determine what is appropriate…otherwise, it is going to be a mystery for a long time to come…it has not been solved so far…we need to think differently…consider every angle…also, consider everyone’s input dear…who knows who is going to make it through…so we shouldn’t try to curtail someone’s contribution…however odd that may be…because, Bessler himself was an odd man out…

      Delete
    4. Ed wrote 'What it really is extremely important to get into our heads is that it is not correct to think that we have superior knowledge of Bessler. It is important to stop telling everyone "facts" like there is only one design or you must use eight weights.'

      If you had tg's knowledge of the dt portrait clues you would not make such ridiculous comments which only show how clueless you really are!

      mike

      Delete
  19. Do we know for a fact that Bessler's wheel held 8 weights, or is this just an assumption? He did say that with one crossbar his wheel barely turned. So are we to also assume that a crossbar holds 2 weights? Based on eye witness accounts, approximately 8 bangs were heard per rotation of the wheel, so one could assume the number of sounds correspond to the number of weights, each sound coming from a weight as it landed on its rim stop. Do you think our generation is the only one to think this way. What has that assumption gotten us and everyone that came before us? Nothing. It would seem reasonable that weights were used in pairs, and that multiple pairs would be need to sustain motion, but that is a classical view of the wheel - "a mechanics view of the wheel".

    ReplyDelete
  20. Trevor,

    If by these discussions you mean ones in which various people state what Bessler said with no citation and no proof, that then others will take as facts because they don't know any better or are too lazy to verify themselves, then no.

    If you mean a discussion where people talk about their opinions as to what would work best in a design, then absolutely!

    -Ed

    ReplyDelete
  21. The fact is that the real secret is in the design of the lever-weight combo. When one gets it in his mind he is very sure that he has solved it...he need not even build a model for confirmation that it will work...such is the design...it is not necessary that just because eight bangs were heard we are forced to believe that there have to be 8 wts, but one can easily perceive or come to a logical conclusion after much thought that eight wts sound reasonable...a circle can be equally divided into four/eight segments for a proper stable and balancing act...with enough space to perform their acts without any entanglement mutually...for a continuous movement, these wts have to swing successively in a periodical movement...one after another...one wt lifts another...and this is a fact...

    We can also try with lesser number of wts to see if they could produce 8 bangs in one round completion...the wheels bessler demonstrated were a bit thick which tells us that they were designed to definitely hold many wts...also, think of the wt of those wheels themselves...take into consideration other noises the wheels made...consider the work output demonstrated through the window...can just 2 wts perform so much??...the wts in the wheel are its main components which tap gravity...all this simply implies that there were certainly more wts inside...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Implications are not facts. The Fact is the sounds could have been anything. From weights banging to ratchet pawls.

      Many ones have gotten it in their mind throughout history that he has solved it and he absolutely needs to build a model for confirmation....such is life. Unless, well, you don't live in the real world?

      -Ed

      Delete
  22. You could be right Ed...or even wrong for that matter...the fact is there have been too many false claims/promises, innumerable failures, even frauds surrounding this topic that it has made the subject a taboo...your reactions are but natural...the discussions here are sometimes very frustrating...one is trying to outsmart or mislead another...it is also a real rat race..

    Bessler wheel was real and if this is a fact then it is possible again...if it is possible then someone is going to achieve it, sooner or later...if not already...
    Take for instance your case...you really wouldn't be here if you didn't believe in it...

    Karl's involvement or his descriptions cannot be simply ignored..the mechanism is too simple to be believed or it is so much simple that there is always a fear that it could get leaked and deprive its actual creator...

    Just because no one was right since then does not denote that anyone who firmly asserts now does not live in the real world...if only the discussions in this blog can remain on right course we can be sure of moving on the right track....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suresh,

      Ah, but who is to say what the right track is? Certainly not TG? LOL

      My comment about the real world was not in relation to anyone firmly believing that the task is doable or that Bessler was genuine, I also firmly believe it is and that he was. My comment is in relation to going beyond that to the point where people spend time arguing that things are facts when they are not or can not be fully known, and therefore can not be facts.

      So, we believe PM is possible and we believe Bessler was genuine, but without proof we can't assert beyond our opinion. This goes for little Bessler document details that people get for who knows where and spout as facts.

      Another point about the real world is you can't only have the solution in your mind and expect everyone else to buy it as fact.

      Many have said those famous last words "I can't see why this will not work", only to eventually end up seeing why it won't work.

      The only proof that you have the true working device is to have it physically built and working in reality, *and* be willing to discuss or share it with others, otherwise there is no point in telling anyone you have the answer or know facts about the solution that others do not. If you do this without disclosure, you have to expect people to be skeptical.

      I can't claim to be able to go faster than light without proof, or else people will not believe me. Period. And it is to be expected, so don't even bother until you are ready.

      Trevor, I've asked you twice now about your spring idea and you have ignored me. I thought you wanted to have discussions here?

      -Ed

      Delete
    2. Ed,I did answer somewhere.You may have missed it.
      I was trying out a spring that reversed it's tension using a kinetic flywheel.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Trevor, I must have missed it then. So, how well did the spring work? Did it achieve at all what you had hoped?

      -Ed

      Delete
    4. Ed,..I remembered what was said in in the eye-witness accounts:that the weights had a hole in the middle,which meant they could possibly revolve.
      Now,if they were connected to a spiral spring,each time they move to the side on their levers,they would eventually build up a timed oscillation back and forthe and this intermittant torque could be used to twist and transfer the attitude of the levers,taking their weights to the side to cause a proponderance to over-balance the wheel.
      In fact it did work like that according to his description of the weights referring to,"their wonderful speedy flight".
      Unfortunately I found that the twisting action had a reverse action on the whole wheel,slowing it down.
      I have not exhausted the test so it still remains to be seen whether I have got every thing right!

      Delete
  23. Time will tell, but I think another misconception is that the prime mover was some simple arrangement of levers, weights, and springs. The prime mover may have been much more (not saying more complicated as that would counter Karl's observation) of an integral part of the wheel, and the banging could have come it rather than weights being shifted about.

    The point I am trying to make is resist the temptation to accept the obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  24. John, :)
    am I right to assume that I don't need to post any more ideas? :)
    That is until after the test run. :)

    Stephen Burke :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what Ed means when he said, "I don't think having discussions in the comments of John's blog is the best place. As soon as John posts a new item the discussions would be disrupted and John should be able to feel free to do so whenever he wants."

      This is a problem I consider every time I post a new item, should I wait for a day or so to allow discussions to continue, or run their course. In the end I have to make a decision and sometimes it's ok and other times the discussions either continue for s short while on the old previous item and sometime they transfer to the new one - and sometinmes they stop.

      In the end I do what I hope is ok and trust that people will understand that this is blog, primarily, but available for comments too.

      Keep doing what you're doing and thanks.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John ,
      No worries concerning the wheel . ALL IS CLEAR NOW !
      Thank you for putting up with me all this time . I will make it worth your while very soon .
      LLtGJC
      CW

      Delete
    3. Interpretation of LLtGJC : Long Live the Great John Collins .
      CW

      Delete
  25. Hodgepodge Blog

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  26. John,..Thanks for this gateway to connect with others in common with the perpetual motion subject.
    One cannot talk about perpetual motion to just anybody because they either don't know what you are talking about,or they think you're a crackpot because they believe it's impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In years to come there will be more advanced orffyrean time travel machines to the one Johann Bessler invented.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ealadha7 March 2013 21:40

      I am not going to post on this blog here again because I find reading it very boring.

      Delete
    2. Yes, this is my last post. If you send time travellers back in time to see the greatest inventor in the history of the world , what do you think is going to happen , is what is going to happen is he is going to invent a time machine , thus there must exist an orffyrean time machine!
      Using the orffyrean time machine would Bessler have hidden the wheels somewhere in time, or hidden them in another time/space continuum, presuming the time machine could cross over into parallel universes !


      Delete
    3. Yep, I think you've solved it. The secret to the Bessler Wheel is hiding in a parallel universe, along with Bigfoot, Jimmy Hoffa, and Elvis.

      Delete
    4. Ealadha, enjoy your stay at Happy Acres ...

      Delete
  28. Our electric skateboard are not the oversized, heavy, low quality, hard to carve models that have come before. And, yes, they are lithium powered. The bamboo and carbon street series are under 20 lbs. with a range of up to 20 miles.

    ReplyDelete

Was Johann Bessler an Undiscovered Genius?

A recent casual comment about Johann Bessler got me thinking; was Bessler a genius?  My first thought was to dismiss the idea because there...