Sunday, 31 March 2013

Could Bessler have found a better path in which to successfully sell his machine?


I was musing on the problems Bessler must have contemplated once he had first completed his wheel.  Considering his lowly position on the social ladder, he faced an uphill task to attract the right kind of attention to his new machine in order to find a potential buyer.  I cannot think of any other avenue which might lead to success other than the one he took, which was to display the wheel turning.

The reactions to this event were predictable, but he did not work out how to improve the effect, until he met Gottfried Leibniz, who visited him on two occasions and I imagine the discussions were roughly of this nature.

During the first meeting, having throughly examined the wheel and asked many questions and probably not received the politest of responses, Leibniz left to continue his journey, but returned subsequently with some helpful advice.  I say this about the second visit because there was no other reason for Leibniz's return.  He had completed his examination of the machine during his first visit and there was nothing more to be done other than to repeat the same tests.  

I think that the old man first told Bessler that showing a wheel turning, but not doing anything other than move some stampers wasn't convincing and he had to show it doing proper work, such as raising a heavy weight or turning an archimedes screw.  People had to relate the wheel's use to something who's value they could easily appreciate.

Secondly he told Bessler that having the wheel mounted on two sets of supports and demonstrating the wheel on first one then the other, while allowing examination of both sets before and after, would greatly improve people's trust in his claim that there was no trickery involved.

Thirdly he asked if Bessler could build a wheel which could turn in either direction, that would make the suggestion that it was driven by clockwork harder to make stick.

Fourthly, he suggested that an endurance test of several days, during which the machine was made to run continuously, would convince those who still doubted that it was worth the money being asked.  This arrangement would be best carried out in a princely castle where proper scrutiny could be arranged. This was suggested by Leibniz to Moritz-Wilhelm, Duke of Zeitz, a cousin of Karl of Hesse-Kassel, and a regular correspondent of Leibniz. His exact words to one member of the Court, "I advised him [Bessler] to arrange a test in which his machine would be run for several weeks with all possible precautions taken to exclude any suspicion of fraud."

Moritz-Wilhelm was unwilling to commit himself to overseeing an endurance test lasting some weeks but did agree to carry out an official examination of the wheel including three of Liebniz's suggestions.  Many important people were invited to the demonstration including Liebniz's former pupil, professor Christian Wolff.  This examination did expand the inventor's fame and eventually resulted in his move to Kassel where he came under the protection of Karl the Landgrave of Hesse.

I believe it that Liebniz's final suggestion was the most important one, which created the new situation.  He told Bessler that if he really wanted to be taken seriously he must allow an important prince to examine the interior of the wheel so that he could state unequivocally, "this machine is genuine and I have seen it and tested it and I say so with all the authority of my position and rank".  This prince, Liebniz said, had to have a reputation of complete honesty and be independently wealth, thus be beyond bribery.  He suggested Karl was the ideal candidate.

It becomes clear that Bessler followed the advice given him by Gottfrried Leibniz.  He designed the demonstration so as to rule out every possible accusation of cheating; made it run both ways to rule out clockwork mechanisms, had a second set of supports so that peope could examine each set; made it do proper work rather than just making it spin, by lifting a heavy weight, and turn an archimedes screw; and finally make it managed to arrange an endurance test certified by an honest host.  

I can see parallels in Bessler's life which might apply today.  Even if someone succeeds in reconstructing Bessler's wheel if he or she wishes to patent the device they are in effect sharing that information with an honest broker, just as Bessler did with Karl.  Of course if you don't wish to go the patent route - and myself and some others would prefer not to have to patent - then there is no problem with sharing your secret.

Was there anything Bessler could have done differently, given his low status and lack of funds, which might have helped him on to success?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

114 comments:

  1. Is big oil is not a problem ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. He could have taken it to a mine and rented it out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There was nothing much Bessler could have done given the extreme bad luck and bad destiny looming large over him…He tried everything out…even going to the extent of changing his name, and, finally, he did the best thing by taking it to the grave after leaving back some good written records which he knew would either prove him right in case someone does invent the same or aid him in his attempt at it when he takes rebirth…
    One can’t just give away for free or sell it at a throw away price after having spent most of his life in achieving the same…It is extremely difficult or impossible to find an honest broker like Karl these days for sharing such a secret…Karl believed and respected Bessler and also helped him more than anyone else…Now a days, with all the power of communication available at our disposal, people simply ignore, misunderstand, ridicule or just criticize when someone tries to explain or offer a clue…There is too much competition these days…cut throat rivalry…much more than in Bessler times…or hostile environment as TG had stated…
    There is something which is linked to spirituality, destiny or the soul connection through rebirth…Bessler did believe in this…If this is true then Bessler is very much living amongst us…his soul must have taken rebirth in a different body and must be trying to accomplish the unfinished job…
    What is wrong in trying to figure this out, anyway?...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wrong,wrong,wrong!..There is no such thing as re-incarnanation period.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We only live once.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And time travel is impossible .

      Delete
    2. Metempsychosis? Palingenesis? Never heard of them.

      Delete
  6. Then what really happens to us after we die? What about our dreams, visions and unfinished job? Why are some people born privileged and some in poverty and in a miserable state? Is it not that good begets good and bad deeds bringing miseries true? What really is God? And how did everything come into being? What is past life regression?...Why are we born at all? Who creates everything?... Such questions cannot be answered by belief in science alone?…
    There has to be a source for everything and proper explanation too…We may not believe in all this but Bessler did believe…His desires, efforts and plans won’t go in vain...There are experts who do have faith in this and can explain it better…This is something that needs proper reasoning and not a subject to be taken lightly…perhaps the mystery of Bessler and his Wheel could be solved through this method…

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your dreams and asperations can only vbe realised if you make Jesus Lord of your life.
    Indeed you can inherit eternal life and live forever.
    Plenty of time to make as many wheels as you want to.
    I don't want to enter into a theological discussion,..just read the word, believe and you will be changed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A question for the computer experts , is the following free simulation program good for modelling wheel ideas :
    http://www.ar-cad.com/
    I am not great with computers .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first point here is that anyone claiming to be an expert on any particular simulation program must have downloaded and used it extensively, ideally for several months or so. So you really need a comment from someone who has done that with ar-cad.

      With that disclaimer, I had a quick look at the ar-cad website. First impressions:—

      It looks interesting. I see it can import CAD files, (which is the way I like to work in preparing 3D simulations). Joint types are very important in 3D, and ar-cad seems to have them all.

      Looking at the examples page, many of the animations are really only 2D ones, shown in isometric view. The real test of a 3D program is whether it can give correct and accurate results for things like a precessing gyroscope, or a rattleback, etc. And the only way to really find out is to "jump in the deep end" — just download the program and try it!

      That ties in to my last point. If you're just starting out with computer simulations, and have no immediate need for 3D modelling, it would certainly be easier to start with a 2D program like silux (but that only works on 32-bit computers, not 64-bit ones) or Working Model 2D, or Physion etc. On the other hand, if you go with ar-cad, you have only one program to learn, although it will probably mean a fairly steep learning curve at first.

      Delete
    2. A couple more points: At http://www.ar-cad.com/sc-motion/index.html it says that you only get a 30-day free trial of sc-motion, so it's only free for that long.

      Another 3D simulation program is Universal Mechanism, see http://www.universalmechanism.com/en/pages/index.php?id=3

      As far as I know, UM Lite is still free (scroll down the page to see details). Or you can get a 3-month free trial of the full program, which is the 3D program I use. I can guarantee a steep learning curve with UM at first, but well worth it, IMO.

      Delete
    3. I do not have enough RAM for universal mechanism, I have 480 mb of RAM and a 2.99 ghz processor to work with .
      I am trying free cad, I am studying how to use it from the videos on the ar cad website .

      Delete
  9. Once he was under the protection of Karl he could have done something that -in my view- would have impressed the entire population of the town and drawn visitors from all around for decades -if not longer- to come. Have a fountain built in the city center or square, with a couple of wheels in glass case on top, and have the whole contraption pump free drinking water into a basin. Also pipe it into houses that want to obtain this service against a small fee.

    Or construct some (paid) ferry boat service; with one or two of his wheels driving paddle wheels.

    Drive a sawmill, milling service, or other industrial equipment. There's plenty of things that could be implemented with rotary power without colossal investments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andre sir…you are always forgetting the security aspect of the wheel’s secret…the more the displays the more the danger of leaking the secret…Bessler couldn’t trust anyone in this matter…he personally had to be present beside the wheel during public displays…and this wouldn’t have been possible in the nature of displays mentioned by you…remember Gravesand’s curiosity which made bessler lose his cool…
      It is all to do with the wheel’s internal mechanism’s simplicity…just one look inside would give everything away…Even today, if it is invented one would hesitate to go to the patent’s office for fear of losing the secret there… While passing around a single weight through various hands bessler made sure it was well concealed in an handkerchief…you just can’t trust anyone in this matter…it is stated that Bessler even did not trust his wife in this regard…the stakes are simply too high…Thought of displaying one’s model publically notwithstanding, you would have noticed that people are even secretive while describing about the movement of lever-weight mechanism in their blog posts…such is the vulnerability involved…You might argue that liberal public displays could have still been carried while under Karl’s protection but do you remember that a second security guard was deployed to keep an eye on the first security guard during month long test in a well sealed room…I am sure Bessler couldn’t have had a sound sleep during that period…and, finally, what else Bessler could have done to impress the entire population when he knew for sure that he was very unlucky and highly misunderstood even after intervention of famed personalities…

      Delete
    2. You make a good point, security was a major issue for him. And he was rather paranoid, too, not too surprising in his time. But then again, what has all this secrecy (as well then, as now) brought us? Not a working mechanism, that's for sure. It's frustrating.

      Delete
    3. I quite agree with you, sir…you are absolutely right…all the secrecy is only making it look more mysterious and it is very frustrating too…
      Well, frustrating only to people who are not aware of the actual design of wheel’s internal mechanism…For example…say , I could just explain to you everything in a few lines and I am sure you would be thrilled to the hilt…But why is this not happening?...stiff competition…no security…severe criticism…presence of too many freeloaders…no recognition…no genuine supporters…no guaranteed promise of rewards…no sponsors…no legal standings in the scientific world…great disbelief due to its taboo past…absence of proper procedures /protocol for handling such a super sensitive invention of such volatile nature…lack of seriousness among the persons in authority as well as general public…(see how Doug argued? I wished you’d joined that debate)…fear of severe backlash (Bessler faced it)…the list could go on…
      With no one wanting to take the risk of responsibility of all the above points the inventor has only much to lose…now tell me which real inventor would be willing to clear this mystery after having spent most of his life’s efforts in acquiring the secret?…you know it didn’t come that easily…
      Maybe, the time is not ripe yet…The present scenario is not very harmonious…see how anons attack in this very blog?… no one comes to the rescue…isn’t this bad?...they are always ready to suppress anyone trying to come up with a solution…they think everyone is the same…it is not their fault entirely…there have been too many cases of false claims...this is due to excitement and premature announcements… I would only suggest that you wait for a year or two…you won’t be disappointed…
      If gravity can power great avalanches, run rivers tirelessly..…create tides constantly…bring down even large aircrafts…don’t you think it is ridiculous to declare that it can’t make a wheel to turn permanently?...
      As I had stated many times before it is only a matter of proper designing…a design that can unbalance a wheel…that’s it…thanks to bessler…though he has not completely or directly conveyed what this design is but he has liberally hinted at several places in different ways the mechanism’s secret…and all this will confirm to a new working wheel…There is only one such configuration and no one else has realized this so far…

      Delete
    4. Suresh said "it is only a matter of proper designing…a design that can unbalance a wheel…".

      A design that can unbalance a wheel. You are right on my friend. Keep thinking along those lines.

      ->

      Delete
    5. Thanks…this is encouraging indeed…you seem to have got my point…It is only an unbalancing technique that we have to create in a wheel…then gravity takes care of the rest…I may be successful in solving the BW but not in finding out who you really are and why you prefer to remain as an anon…LOL…

      Delete
    6. Suresh,

      If overbalancing is the only technique that will produce a turning wheel, then I'm afraid the invention today will be doomed to the same fate it had during Bessler's time. The design is inherently weak. Sure it would be great to just get something working, to prove it can be done, but some other way has to be found. An OB wheel just won't be able to complete in today's world. Sure wish I had the answer ;)

      ->

      Delete
    7. You are right...It is OB and it is weak…but the world has to see it anyway…there could be some lighter uses for it…some toys could be based on it…it would be a new wonder…Bessler would be remembered…some records would get straightened…the inventor would be slightly benefited…It would make some headlines…man would find new uses for gravity…You know, rows and rows of gravity wheels can be built in subterranean regions where they would remain hidden and provide constant power supply which can remain for standby use…more than all, it would make man realize how such an invention got suppressed in the first place….

      Delete
    8. We do need to set the story straight with regards to Bessler so he gets the honor he so rightly deserves. I think it is safe to say he is the father of PM, but with all fathers, there are sons, and sons have their own way of doing things. It's our time to shine, and it's our time to push our ideas.

      ->

      Delete
    9. I agree with you...first let us create the original wheel again and further let the world develop it further...

      Delete
    10. You mention a good number of reasons, Suresh, and all valid. As for the anons (let's face it, there are very good ones too), there will always be people who just love to belittle others, discourage them, or try and hurt their feelings. Just the other day I had a couple of discussions on Youtube with some idiots who believe all kinds of nonsense. I don't do that often, but sometimes you have to say something. You'd be surprised how many literally breathtakingly stupid people there are. At least I'm happy I don't have to feed them :-)

      And as the saying goes: "one idiot can drive ten wise men insane" and no doubt that's true. So obviously there will be always severe critics, right or wrong. I can deal with the positive critics, negativists however are a different kettle of fish and deserve a more educational approach :-)

      All of which just serves to say - we won't let us be discouraged by what can't be changed anyway. The absence of a working mechanism is frustrating, yes, but I feel strongly that many are making progress. And, I think my teawater tells me that JC has a few interesting things up his sleeve as well. At least - progress.

      As you say: let us create the original wheel (any wheel will do IMHO) and then the world will develop it further. That's for sure. I'm hopeful.

      Delete
  10. JC said ...

    "Even if someone succeeds in reconstructing Bessler's wheel if he or she wishes to patent the device they are in effect sharing that information with an honest broker, just as Bessler did with Karl."

    Well I hope you are not implying that the US government is an honest broker. That's a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bessler had only one real problem. A 'weak' wheel. If his wheels could have put out thousands of watts costantly like a water wheel of the same size then we would be using them now! Maybe there was no way to redesign the lever shapes inside a wheel to increase power except to make them larger with heavier weights inside oversized drums which makes a wheel have to be the size of a ferris wheel to compete with a simple water wheel. No one wants something that big or unsightly just like todyas 'wind power generators'. Yeah Leibnitz probably made alot of suggestions to Bessler but I think he thought Besslers wheels were being powered by compressed air or something like those clocks they had back then that used daily changes in air pressure to run. He thought the wheel could store up compressed air when it was not running (most of the time) and then release it all back during short demos. I dont think Leibnitz bought the overbalanced mechanism Besler was pushing. Big mistake!

    mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To increase the power output there is an idea…join several wheels horizontally on the same axle…

      Delete
    2. Naturally Suresh,..In fact if you double the volume,you increase the power by eight times,as you should know.

      Delete
    3. The general consensus is Bessler’s wheels were OB based. By their very nature, OB wheels are poor performers because their potential comes from the net difference in torque of the weights mounted on the wheels. I believe the prime mover in this type of wheel did the heavy lifting of the weights.

      Now if there was some other type of prime mover (I'll call it an active prime mover for lack of a better term) that produced linear force and one or more (or maybe 8) were attached to the periphery of the wheel, then the full force of the prime movers would be applied in the direction of movement yielding a much more powerful wheel. Just a pipe dream I guess.

      ->

      Delete
    4. I don’t understand what you mean by Prime mover…there were just eight weights attached to levers in the original BW…that is the simplicity…a man would be lifted off the ground if he tried to stop it…this sounds that it was not so weak…we only create more confusion by talking about the prime mover…the eight weights attached to the levers is the only prime mover… and this phenomenon thrilled the crowd that thronged Bessler’s house during demos…

      Delete
    5. The flywheel effect (momentum) lifted the man off the ground.

      No weight shifting design can work on it's own. At best, excluding friction, a weight shifting OB wheel is break even. You need something else to reset the weights. With that "something else" doing the lifting, all energy of the wheel can then be put into rotation. That something is what I refer to as the prime mover

      If you look at MT15, the wheel looks complete, yet Bessler said "nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced". In MT13 Bessler said "This invention would be very good for running if ... someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed". Again, another reference to that something that can reset the weight.

      The prime mover is much much more ... well that's what I think anyway.

      ->

      Delete
    6. I checked both MT-13 & 15…they don’t provide any clue…
      Let me tell you…bessler devised a very unique lever-weight attachment that’s no where indicated by him thru clues or the mt drawings…he has retained that secret very deliberately…this unique attachment acts as both normal weights and prime mover as well…Now, as long one doesn’t understands this factor he is nowhere near success…if you entirely go by the MT drawings alone then I am afraid it is going to be a long journey…I don’t say there is no clue there but it is certainly not there in 13 and 15…and that is not the way Bessler used the weights…try to figure out why the weight was concealed in an handkerchief…now do you realize why it has taken about 300 years…so finally let me conclude there is no separate prime mover employed…it is the unique lever-weight design…

      Delete
    7. You are right, MT13 and MT15 give no clues to the makeup of the prime mover, just the mention of it's existence. He refers to the PM as if it is something, not as a re-arrangement of the existing levers and weights already shown in the illustrations.
      Bessler's works do show the existence and uniqueness of the PM and I will make that information available in time. It's not hidden, but you have to know how to look at the information.

      Regarding the hanker chief, I think this was just a bit of showmanship to spice up the show and add a bit of intrigue. If there was really something worth hiding, he wouldn't have handed it to everyone with hopes that no one would peek inside.

      The reason it has taken 300 years is no one is looking at the solution the right way. They are backing into the solution by looking at the wheel first instead of concentrating on the prime mover. If you have a prime mover, any wheel design will work. The principle behind the prime mover can be found in nature, and yes, children most certainly make use of it, in his time and ours.

      ->

      Delete
    8. The children play the see-saw game…I hope u mean that…or the one found in nature is it something to do with the planets?...if you are worried how the weights get reset then I would say that it is due to the way of the design of the lever-weight attachment that the resetting happens automatically without any help from any external fittings…if this designing is right then 99% of the problem is solved…anyway…we will continue the discussions tomorrow…it is already past midnight here in India…I need to catch some sleep...thanks and goodnight….

      Delete
    9. Suresh, the prime mover is no longer a secret. I discovered (or re-discovered) it on January 27, 2013. I had what you might call a flux capacitor moment. I knew instantly what it was capable of, from my work with two stage oscillators. It only took a few minutes of math to verify. It is so simple, and yet it's capabilities are boundless. I'm not sure how it fits in with the laws of nature, but it's part of nature so obviously it must obey them. Not too long after that, I found hints to it in MT and elsewhere. I'm not too worried about others finding it as I have said, no one is looking at the solution correctly. I wasn't either. Prior to the discovery I spent over 3 years working on specific overbalanced wheel designs with no success. Now everything has changed. Is it what Bessler found? I don't know. The clues certainly fit, and it is in MT and another Bessler piece of work. I have not built a working wheel. That part is now elementary, as the prime mover can be used in many ways, and in many other things. For now I'm focusing my efforts on ways to simply and enhance the device. The sky is the limit you might say. The things you say are things I used to believe. My thoughts have now changed so I am sorry if I don't agree with you at times or say things that don't make sense. Who knows, maybe I found another way, and the ideas everyone keeps hashing over and over are right, but then again you have 300 years against you.

      ->

      Delete
    10. You say…No weight shifting design can work on it's own. At best, excluding friction, a weight shifting OB wheel is break even…
      Well, you could be right and this can be proved only after the final outcome…but I feel you be wrong…I would like to say from my thoughts that all the MT drawings are the failed attempts of Bessler before he could finally hit the bulls-eye… These drawings suggest how Bessler graduated from the basics level…It also indicates his logical progress…Every sincere BW researcher goes thru this stage…Bessler has deliberately left these drawings to convince us that he underwent lot of struggle…to prove his genuineness, in fact… every drawing gives a miniscule clue only…it further also shows us how much effort has gone into it…But none of them is complete…sometimes they guide us right and sometimes misguide, too…this is for sure…Our efforts should not be based on them entirely…The actual design can be realized thru one’s original self effort…the drawings can be used as later reference…
      From what I can understand you seem to rely on these drawings totally…You also rely too much on Besslers comments too much to aid your research…We should always remember that Bessler didn’t want us to find the success easily…you might have found something that is useful…but nothing at all to do with what Bessler came up with…
      What Karl found when he gazed inside should never be ignored by us…Was the prime mover you talk about seen by Karl? I mean did it exist then? If not, we should very well forget about it now…I strongly feel that Bessler was trying to hide something while displaying a weight concealed in a handkerchief…but your belief is on the contrary…here itself we fall apart in our understandings…Our main motto should be to recreate what Bessler did originally not really bothering about whether it would be weak, etc.,…If we can just come up with that unique lever-weight mechanism our job is complete…Complications and thinking of further improvements would only cause more confusions if not distractions…

      Delete
    11. If tg is right then the 'prime mover' was the weight moving between 7:30 and 9:00 in a clockways turning drum. It was the dropping of that single weights lever that shifted all of the other counter balanced weights and 'reset' the inner mechanics so as to constantly keep their center of gravity away from the drum axle. How that was done is not shown anywhere but in the dt portraits but is only shown there in a symbolic way. That was intentional by Bessler to make unraveling hte secret of his wheels as difficult as possible. For 300 years this worked but now that attention is shifting to the portraits and sim software being useed that situation will thankfully be changing. Anyone new to this blog should be doing two things if they are serious about finding Bessler's secret out. Get a copy of Collins version of AP and read it and most importantly then read all of tg's (thats 'technoguy's') comments made here between Aug 30 2011 and Jan 8 2013. You will be very, very glad you did!

      mike

      Delete
    12. Suresh, I'm getting ready to leave for work. I will put together a full reply there. Briefly though, I will attempt to prove to you that a weight shifter can't work without outside help (active prime mover). Also, I don't rely on Bessler's MT. After finding the prime mover, I noticed it was in MT, so that suggests maybe he used it too. I'm really a two stage oscillator guy. Anyway, got to go now. Will reply soon.

      ->

      Delete
    13. <<< PART 1 >>>

      You say…No weight shifting design can work on it's own. At best, excluding friction, a weight shifting OB wheel is break even… . Well, you could be right and this can be proved only after the final outcome…but I feel you be wrong…

      A simple weight shifting wheel is one where weights shift outwards
      at the top of the wheel and shift inwards at the bottom of the wheel.
      This will take more space so I will have to reply later.

      I would like to say from my thoughts that all the MT drawings are the failed attempts of Bessler before he could finally hit the bulls-eye… These drawings suggest how Bessler graduated from the basics level…It also indicates his logical progress…Every sincere BW researcher goes thru this stage…Bessler has deliberately left these drawings to convince us that he underwent lot of struggle…to prove his genuineness, in fact… every drawing gives a miniscule clue only…it further also shows us how much effort has gone into it…But none of them is complete…sometimes they guide us right and sometimes misguide, too…this is for sure…Our efforts should not be based on them entirely…The actual design can be realized thru one’s original self effort…the drawings can be used as later reference…

      I agree with everything you said to this point.

      From what I can understand you seem to rely on these drawings totally…You also rely too much on Besslers comments too much to aid your research…

      I have not relied on any of the information, in fact, my work with
      OB wheels did nothing but eliminate them as potential runners. As I
      said before, once I found the active prime mover, I noticed it was
      in MT and one other place. To me this says either Bessler knew of it,
      or it was just a coincidence and it was there for some other purpose.

      We should always remember that Bessler didn’t want us to find the success easily…you might have found something that is useful…but nothing at all to do with what Bessler came up with…

      Again, we agree. You are right, what I found may not be what Bessler
      used. However, it’s existence in two Bessler works does add some credence
      that Bessler new of it.

      ->

      Delete
    14. <<< PART 2 >>>

      What Karl found when he gazed inside should never be ignored by us…Was the prime mover you talk about seen by Karl? I mean did it exist then? If not, we should very well forget about it now…

      As I previously mentioned, the active prime mover is extremely simple
      looking, so Karl could have seen it as part of the overall wheel. You
      could put several on the periphery of an empty wheel and drive the wheel,
      or you could put one big and powerful one in the middle of the wheel to
      reset the upper and lower weights in an OB type wheel like MT9 thru MT16.
      In MT11 (the wheel with the inner mechanism), Bessler says there is more
      in it than meets the eye.

      I strongly feel that Bessler was trying to hide something while displaying a weight concealed in a handkerchief…but your belief is on the contrary…here itself we fall apart in our understandings…

      You may be right, but I have a hard time thinking someone so bent on hiding
      a secret would just hand it out with only a cloth covering it, hoping no
      one would look inside.

      Our main motto should be to recreate what Bessler did originally not really bothering about whether it would be weak, etc.,…If we can just come up with that unique lever-weight mechanism our job is complete…Complications and thinking of further improvements would only cause more confusions if not distractions…

      MT is full of weight lever ideas, but that aside, do you know of any
      other information where Bessler specifically said his wheel had some
      unique lever-weight mechanism?


      I'm not trying to reproduce Bessler's wheel, I don't think there are enough known facts to do this at this time. I would still be working on my OB wheels had I not found the prime mover I mentioned. Finding a runner will prove PM is possible and that is enough to suggest Bessler did too. The only way to know for sure that you found Bessler's design is to find and decode some source of information by him that either shows or describes in detail the design of the wheel. Anything else would just be a guess. It sounds like 0ystein is heading in this direction, so that is good. My intent for sending you information was just to say there is another way of thinking about the solution, and I promise you, there is.

      ->

      Delete
    15. Sorry for the TG like post ... My indenting got lost too.

      Suresh, I added comments between yours. Hope you can make sense of it.

      ->

      Delete
    16. Yeh, it is an elaborate reply from your side…thanks…I need to read it several times more
      But, I would like to know something about what an active prime mover really is?...I really don’t know a thing about it…I have no idea what exactly it is and what is expected from it…Is it really required in BW?...can’t we do without it?...Are you trying to tell that recreating BW is impossible without inclusion of this Prime Mover?...Is there any difference between Prime mover and Active Prime mover?...What makes the prime Mover move?...Why can’t a simple design involving only levers and weights run a wheel?...is resetting the only problem thereby encountered if Prime Movers are not employed?...Is there any set numbers of prime movers that a wheel should possess?...See, how many questions crop up?...I have no inkling as to what a prime mover is…

      Bessler was a serious man…he wouldn’t necessarily add spice to his showman ship…he hid the weight in a handkerchief to really hide something obvious…and there was no much risk involved here as he was physically present amongst the crowd and could have instantly intervened if anyone tried to play fowl…He was confident of that…he had a bad temper too…If anyone wanted to steal the secret was it too difficult to pounce and tear open the canvas of the wheel drum?…

      Delete
    17. You asked, ”do you know of any other information where Bessler specifically said his wheel had some
      unique lever-weight mechanism?”
      Well, Not so, but Bessler has hinted so many things in the poem which indirectly points to the lever-weight mechanism..like children playing among the pillars and so on…reference to pea-cock tail., etc.,
      In my view, a lever-weight mechanism is the only solution for recreating the original BW..there is no second option here…also, this lever-weight is so designed that it plays the role of the so called Prime Mover also…I am sure you may not take this but let me tell you one thing…if there were multiple options there was no need for that poem, clues, etc…by now, someone or the other would have invented the wheel by now…It has not taken 300 years for nothing…

      Delete
    18. Suresh,

      In general, a prime mover is some type of apparatus or mechanism that when turned on (or in an operational state) creates mechanical movement. Most motors and engines fall into this category. A wound up spring in a clock is an example of a prime mover. It creates movement until it unwinds. It would then need to be rewound to start the clock working again, or you could periodically wind the spring to keep the clock from stopping all together. Prime movers need to be reset, rewound, or refueled.

      A simple prime mover can be nothing more than a raised weight on a lever. Lets say that when the weight falls, it rotates the lever. Now if there was a second weight in the path of that lever, the second weight could be moved. So you see, a prime mover really is nothing more than a group of parts that somehow create movement. There are an infinite number of possibilities. In the OB wheels like MT9 thru MT16, the prime mover would be the parts (not shown) that would be necessary to lift each of the main weights that are shown and attached to the ends of the crossbars. Each prime mover may be nothing more than a weight and a few levers (throw in some cords and springs if you believe TG). The prime mover would likely be reset as the wheel rotates. Once upside down, the prime mover weight would fall back to its initial position, pulling the main weight with it. This isn’t anything different than what you were saying, just another way of referring to the same parts. The problem lies with the reset. So far, no one has been able to reset the prime mover and main weights together.

      So yes, prime movers are required to shift the main weights in all of the OB wheel designs. Karl would not have been able to differentiate the prime movers because they are integral to the wheel.

      *******

      I add the term “active” to denote something totally new. An active prime mover doesn’t need resetting, rewinding or refueling, it just keeps working. The potential to create mechanical movement is always there. So how does an active prime mover create movement? Well first, it can move itself, and second, it can move anything in its path. That’s it, simple isn’t it. You just have to figure out the path that makes sense. Or you can do what I previously suggested, attach several of them to the periphery of an empty wheel to drive it rotationally, or put one larger more powerful version on the inside of the wheel and use it to lift the weights (at 12 and 6) of an OB wheel.

      One more thing. You said Bessler's wheel used 8 weights. I'm guessing you said this because that is what is being said on all the forums, and that comes from eye witness accounts of hearing 8 bangs per rotation. Logically one could assume the banging comes from the weights hitting internal stops, and that could very well be true. But, how do you know the active prime mover doesn't create sounds, and maybe 8 per wheel rotation?

      ->

      Delete
    19. Thanks…my battery is down and the electrical main power is also down since last night…I will reply later…tell me which mt drawing has a prime mover…still not clear…my 8 weights idea is not based on BW forum discussions, but my 22 years personal research....

      Delete
    20. If you mean that the swinging pendulum in a wall clock is its prime mover as it helps the clock’s needle movement then I think that I understand it…

      Well, if you compare the needles of the clock(I mean the hour and the minute hands)to the lever-weight attachments in the BW, then I think the Pendulum(the prime mover) is not required…hope you are able to grasp my point here…

      Because, in a BW, the lever-weight attachments themselves swing unlike the needles of the clock thereby making the additional requirement of a prime mover redundant …

      Delete
    21. I am sure now that you are greatly worried about the resetting problem…you have come to the conclusion that mere weight shifters won’t last…it will be a break even…

      Well, not so if you ask me…that is because you consider the weight shifters to be just some weights attached to levers…

      but it is not like that…you need to come up with a very ingenuous lever-weight combo as I often refer…an apparatus that works like a magic…it is possible, but no one thinks of it…you may recollect what Karl had stated after looking inside…why no one thought of it before….

      Delete
    22. Suresh, a prime mover can be any collection of parts (weights, levers, ...) that move something else. It's just a way of referring to those parts as a whole. The clock spring scenario I mentioned was just an example and has nothing to do with the actual BW.

      Now that I have the active prime mover, my looking days are over. Once my prime mover is redesigned (hopefully smaller), I will be taking the simple, yet more powerful route. That is placing multiple active prime movers attached to the periphery of an empty wheel. I will leave the discovery of the exact BW up to the purists.

      ->

      Delete
    23. Well I just got to work and can now reply further. If a more conventional prime mover was used (non-active as I call it), then it would be a combination of levers and weights, and yes it would be something very ingenious and magical. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't be.

      Here is why I think the active prime mover may have been used in the BW. It is very simple in appearance. It can fit inside the wheel around the axle, kind of like another wheel (see MT11). It has the potential to lift weights at any location - at 12 and 6 would give the greatest OB effect and power. It greatly simplifies the rest of the OB wheel, that is, no extra levers or weights are needed to lift the weights at the perimeter of the wheel. The design is in MT and somewhere else. The active prime mover and remaining OB wheel fit Bessler's clues. The active prime mover utilizes a stork's bill and this is what allows the magical movement to occur. As I mentioned earlier, the active prime mover does include weights. Changing the number of weights and heaviness of each, changes certain characteristics of the device. In it's simplest form, it resembles a 3 pointed star (the AP wheel). And the final detail I will mention is it works!

      There is not one fact, picture, or written word by Bessler or any eye witness that says this is not the BW design. Based on the facts, it is more than likely this is the design. So I hope you see why I am satisfied with the active prime mover.

      ->





      Delete
    24. Suresh, ignore my previous post. The facts all blend together so I restructured the information.


      Here is why I think the active prime mover may have been used in the BW.

      - The active prime mover is very simple in appearance and operation.

      - The active prime mover can fit inside the wheel around the axle, kind of like
      another wheel (see MT11). Could this be Bessler's way of saying so.

      - The active prime mover has the potential to lift weights at any angle. Lifting at
      12 and 6 would give the greatest OB effect and power.

      - An OB wheel with the active prime mover is greatly simplified. The weights on each
      crossbar would be connected so that when the upper weight (at 12) is lifted, the
      lower weight (at 6) would be lifted. This greatly simplifies the rest of the OB
      wheel. No additional levers or weights would be needed to reset the main weights
      at the ends of the crossbars. How much more simple looking could you make it.

      - The active prime mover is shown in MT and another Bessler work. Bessler said using
      MT and some intuition, a movement could be found.

      - The wheel design I described in point 4, fits Bessler's clues.

      - The active prime mover utilizes a stork's bill and this is what allows the magical
      movement to occur. No other lever/linkage design will work as well.

      - As I mentioned earlier, the active prime mover does include weights. Changing the
      number of weights and/or heaviness of each, changes certain characteristics of the
      device. Altering the device in this way would allow for heavier weights to be used
      in the wheel, and as a result, the wheel could do more work.

      - The active prime mover in its simplest form resembles a three pointed star (the
      Apologia wheel or Trinity symbol). To a deeply religious person, this could
      be nothing but a positive sign - a sign from God if you will.

      - The final detail I will mention is it works!

      There is not one fact, picture, or written word by Bessler or any eye witness that says this is not the BW design. Based on the information I provided, it is more than likely this is the BW design. So I hope you see why I am satisfied with the active prime mover. All the looking and experimenting is done. I need to design the prime mover with more modern materials to reduce the size and increase it's potential. The wheel would follow.

      ->

      Delete
    25. I think I need to read many times to comprehend all that you have written above…I also feel it is going to take very long to get all this arranged and still the final outcome is in suspense…you have put in a lot of effort and there is no doubt about it…only after reading it several times more I will be able to say something…at the moment it all looks a bit complicated…I appreciate your hard efforts…
      Ever since 1989, I had been racking my mind to find out the secret inner mechanism without being aware about Bessler’s story…and in 2008 I was able to form in my mind that simple design (without prime mover) and later started to compare the clues from internet and was amazed that several crucial clues matched perfectly…
      What I am trying to say is that there is one very simple design using only levers and weights which can power the wheel without any additional use of a Prime Mover…This lever-weight attachments also perform as prime movers themselves…they do double acting…It is like having a sofa cum bed…I mean all in one…
      My question is why to have a separate Prime mover when it can be inbuilt in the main lever-weight system…A smart innovation…that is why it took Bessler a long time to find…and that is why it looked very simple to Karl yet amazing…
      What you are saying could have been found by anyone else that too in a shorter time…also it doesn’t looks simpler…Sorry to say, you have a tendency to complicate things when there are less complicated choices available…your narration is so complicated that it may take several days reading for me to grasp what you are trying to say…pls don’t mind…
      My request is pls explain in a very simple way…I am finding it too hard…
      You are NOT very sure that an active prime mover was used by Bessler…the active prime mover may be simple in appearance but MAY NOT when viewed in complete with other lever-weight system…The active prime mover may have the potential to lift the weights BUT WHY do we need them since there is another option where the lever-weights can lift themselves…The active prime mover TOO require their own weights to remain active and this poses extra burden as a whole…

      Delete
    26. I see the active prime mover as a lead horse to guide a two horse chariot…when the two horse chariot is quite self sufficient to go on by themselves why then is the requirement of the lead horse arises in the first place…We could make it all appear very simple without the prime mover…
      The key is to invent lever-weight attachments that manage by themselves…

      By attaching multiple prime movers in the periphery aren’t we trying to deviate from the original simple wheel design?...Do you know that a weight need not touch 12 o clock position at all?...yes…after crossing 6 o clock position the weights just take a short cut nearer to axle…If you follow this method you will realize why I am always crying about the presence of prime movers…

      Delete
    27. Suresh, there are two distinct designs using the active prime mover.

      DESIGN #1: This design would incorporate multiple active prime movers placed along the periphery of an empty wheel. Additional weights could be added to produce a greater flywheel effect. The active prime movers would provide the force to turn the wheel. Think of them like tiny rockets attached to the outside of the wheel, all of them point in the direction of rotation. This design offers the greatest torque and speed potential because there is nothing but friction that would slow the wheel. Bessler said his wheels used different principles, so it is possible that one of his earlier wheels were based on this design. I would still expect him to use the same active prime mover though.

      DESIGN #2: The Bessler Wheel. This would be an OB wheel using a single active prime mover to reset the weights. I described it in point 4 in my previous reply so I won't elaborate further.

      I also want to be very clear that the active prime mover works. That is why I say the looking and experimenting are over. I do have to re-engineer it to make it more durable, smaller and more powerful. After that I will decide which wheel design to build.

      In the end, if my design is proven not to be Bessler's, I will have at least proven continuous motion possible, and hopefully helped to vindicate Bessler.

      ->

      Delete
    28. In the meanwhile, I will just wait keeping fingers crossed…How long is the wait going to be anyway?...
      I am already somewhat disappointed since it is not going to be the Bessler design as it looks now…
      And, this disappointment is going to worsen all the more as I am cocksure no other working design could exist except the Bessler design…for if it was possible then someone by now would have already come up with it…300 years period is not a short period, is it?...

      Delete
    29. Suresh, you posted while I was typing my post. Every wheel has prime movers. A prime mover is just the name for the parts that do the weight shifting. What you call the lever-weight attachments is the prime mover.

      Until 0ystein or someone else deciphers Bessler clues so we know without a doubt what Bessler's wheel looked like, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to guess what Bessler meant with all his clues. I have outlined a wheel that meets the known clues and observations and I have a prime mover that works (now). I also know that either wheel design I choose to build will work.

      ->

      Delete
    30. Suresh, you said

      "I am already somewhat disappointed since it is not going to be the Bessler design as it looks now…"

      You can't say this. In my 16:30 post earlier today, I outlined what I think is Bessler's wheel, and it meets all the known clues and eye witness observations. Can you at least point to some information that says one thing I mentioned is not possible.

      ->

      Delete
    31. You said…”In the end, if my design is proven not to be Bessler's, I will have at least proven continuous motion possible, and hopefully helped to vindicate Bessler.”

      This is one point that tells me you are not very very sure…

      Delete
    32. You said that, “What you call the lever-weight attachments is the prime mover.”

      Yes now you are getting my point or rather I am getting your point…

      Having reached here, I want your opinion on the following:

      My question is if this lever-weight attachment is a prime mover then why do we require additional prime movers in the periphery???...

      Delete
    33. I'm as sure as anyone can be. All the clues fit. Since we are trying to replicate Bessler's wheel based on clues that often require interpretation, who can say with 100% certainty that they know the design. No one can.

      As I said, maybe 0ystein or someone else will be able to decipher Bessler's pictures or writings and find a blueprint for the wheel. Only then we will know for sure.

      ->

      Delete
    34. Suresh, This is in response to your 20:19 post.

      Are you referring to my DESIGN#1 where I mentioned placing prime movers at the periphery?

      ->

      Delete
    35. You said that, “No additional levers or weights would be needed to reset the main weights
      at the ends of the crossbars. How much more simple looking could you make it.”
      Well, from your wheel descriptions involving crossbars I would like to say what I understand…you can easily make out where we differ…

      You think that simple weights are attached to crossbars in a BW…(with additional requirement of prime movers)

      I think that specially designed weights are attached to specially designed levers (that also act like prime movers)

      Now tell me which is simpler...

      Delete
    36. You asked, "Are you referring to my DESIGN#1 where I mentioned placing prime movers at the periphery?"

      My answer is Yes...

      Delete
    37. You said, “I'm as sure as anyone can be. All the clues fit. Since we are trying to replicate Bessler's wheel based on clues that often require interpretation, who can say with 100% certainty that they know the design. No one can.As I said, maybe 0ystein or someone else will be able to decipher Bessler's pictures or writings and find a blueprint for the wheel. Only then we will know for sure.”

      You may be right here….But I want you to give a thought here…
      Why should we depend on Oystein?
      How can we be very sure that Oystein is right?
      Oystein might take very long and are we prepared to wait?
      Who will get the credit, Oystein or the wheel inventor?
      Are you sure Oystein would publically reveal it?
      Why can’t we be Original?
      Don’t you think that there are enough clues for us to reach a consensus?
      The only question now is whether prime movers are necessary…
      I have talked about lever-weight playing dual role making extra prime movers unnecessary…what do you think about it?
      And, finally, do you think we should retire for the day and postpone discussions to the next day? it is now past midnight here...time 1.27 am...you are interesting i should say...

      Delete
    38. I needed to make sure you were not talking about DESIGN#1. I won't refer to that design again unless you ask a specific question. I will only refer to DESIGN#2 (the design I think best describes the Bessler wheel).

      However, I do think we still have differing ideas of what a prime mover is and where it is located. I will start working on a picture so you can see what I am talking about.


      Here is why I think DESIGN#2 is the most simple design possible.

      Imaging each crossbar as being a rod with weights at each end, like a weight lifting dumb bell. Each rod would be able to slide back and forth thru the axle. As each crossbar rotates past the vertical position (one weight at 12, the other at 6), the prime mover located at the axle would lift the rod, resetting the two weights.

      So in a wheel design with 8 weights (or 4 crossbars), only the moving parts are the 4 sliding crossbars and the inner workings of the single active prime mover located at the axle. For now I can only tell you that the active prime mover is very simple looking. Think of a rotating Apologia Wheel.

      If you look at MT9 thru MT16, there are all sorts of moving levers and cords. None of those would be needed. That is why I say DESIGN#2 is simple. I think simple enough for Karl to say so.

      ->

      Delete
    39. Suresh, sorry I missed your last post. We can pick up tomorrow. Here's something for in the morning.

      In reply to your 20:58 post,

      To be honest, I don't know what to think about the information that will be uncovered by 0ystein or the others. Will it be accurate? Which wheel will it be? I'm afraid it could just add more uncertainty. We will have to wait and see what comes of it.

      There certainly are enough clues to make some judgements about the wheel, but the problem is some of them are open to interpretation. An example would be the 8 bangs heard by witnesses during each rotation. That could mean there were 8 weights, and when each weight shifted outwards or inwards, it hit a wheel stop producing the bang. Or the bang could come from a weight falling a short distance then striking the wheel at some point. There are many possibilities, and this is just one clue out of a hundred or so clues.

      The prime mover comes up again... The weights in Bessler's wheel don't move up and down on their own, something moves them. That something is the prime mover. A prime mover might just be the lever system that attaches each weight to the frame. I have an idea, lets stop using the term. However, when I discuss the active prime mover (which is like an engine or pump), I will still call it an active prime mover because it is a unique entity all by itself. This should make things much easier.

      I still plan on making a picture of the Bessler Wheel as I see it so you can get a better idea of what I am talking about.

      ->

      Delete
    40. Suresh, I just noticed your 20:39 reply.

      *************************************
      I asked: "Are you referring to my DESIGN#1 where I mentioned placing prime movers at the periphery?"

      You replied: "My answer is Yes..."
      *************************************

      Hopefully I won't cause more confusion.

      DESIGN#1 is a non-Bessler type wheel. Remember, the active prime mover is like a rocket. It pushes in one direction. If you put one on the outside of an empty wheel, it will try to rotate the wheel in the direction it pushes. With only one active prime mover, the wheel will be out of balance and tend to keel, so to stop this from happening, you would want to put several on the outside of the wheel, evenly spaced, so the wheel is balanced. With the wheel now balanced, and all the active prime movers pushing in the same direction, the wheel would have much more force than an OB type wheel can produce.

      A DESIGN#2 type wheel is a Bessler type OB wheel. In this design, one active prime mover is used in the wheel, and its only job is to lift the weights (via the rod mentioned in my 21:32 post) to create an overbalanced condition. The overbalanced condition is what drives this type of wheel.

      So you see, DESIGN#1 and DESIGN#2 work off different principles, yet they share the same type of active prime mover. Bessler said his wheels worked on different principles. Could this be what he was suggesting? Another clue unfortunately open to interpretation.

      ->

      Delete
    41. You guys should take this offline. Exchange emails. Please.

      Delete
    42. Yeh, thanks, now I understand finally what you were trying to say so far…
      I must be very grateful to you for clearing every doubt in me…I very honestly admit that I find that you a person with a very clear heart…with clear intentions unlike other anons…I am surprised why others misunderstand you…that may be because you write long explanations to describe a point which only confuses sometimes…if you can get this thing point clear then there is just no one here like…
      My purpose is also the same…we should make this blog very interesting…I agree with what Primemignonite has suggested…we should have some form of identity and keep our opinions brief…I hope you too will stick to this…the key is to keep things short…
      Now, let us wind up here as the posts have crossed 100 limit…
      I am once again grateful to you for very patiently replying to all my queries…Now, I have got a clear picture of what you are pursuing…You might have also come to know what I was trying to imply…Wish u good luck till the next blog topic…
      Man…should I say I like your sincere efforts in sharing everything about the wheel…you are quite unique…You are more clear hearted than Me…I hide many things sometimes…

      Sometimes in future,if we fail in our individual efforts, i love to join you in busting this mystery...

      Delete
    43. To Anon 6 April 2013 01:17

      Why don't you post something worth reading.

      Delete
  12. He should have done the Christian thing and helped out his fellow men that were even poorer and lower than he was. He could have shared it with the commoners. But no. He wasn't that much of a Christian.
    Imagine the good he could have done. It makes you wonder if he was legitimate. We'll never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "we'll never know" - very negative statement! Some of us are working hard on showing that and how it would work. I'm not giving up yet, any way.
      Mimi

      Delete
    2. We'll know, and soon, I believe.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Moses received much power from God and he didn't help everyone equally. I believe Bessler was a God fearing man and he had to follow his heart and the path laid out for him.

      Delete
    4. John,..I get 30 turns using chaotic pendulums and one crossbar.Is it not possible that another crossbar added will take it over the critical point into perpetual motion.
      I can't help thinking about Bessler's remark when he first tested his wheel with one crossbar,..he said it would go 'a little'.That could mean,it went a while and stopped.

      Delete
    5. Trevor, it sounds as if you are really close, congratulations! I never achieved more than about 3 turns so far, so I am very impressed with your results. I can't visualise what you are doing with pendulums and crossbars... so can't give you advice - but if it seems feasible for you to add a crossbar, then go for it! You seem to have a good intuition. I myself am better at theory than intuition. I am looking into operating the wheel at its natural frequency, bringing on resonance. Still a bit baffled by the formulas, but feel I am getting there, gradually.

      Delete
    6. Trevor really does not have a clue, his wheel went a while and then stopped. lol.

      Delete
    7. Okay anon ,..what did yours do,.. huh?

      Delete
    8. Anon said 'It makes you wonder if he was legitimate. We'll never know.' If it was a hoax then it was the greatest hoax in history. The count said it was gneuine and thats good enough for me. If the wheel had been sold and found to be a fraud then Karls reputation would have been destroyed throughout Europe. There's no way Karl would have risked that. Face it. Bessler really did achieve pm and if he did it someone today will too. Concentrate on those portraits like your life depended on it if you are a serious active Bessler wheel builder otherwise you'll either eventually quit from frustration or go to your grave without knowing how Bessler did it.

      mike

      Delete
    9. Karl was duped, and that's what he would have claimed. 'Bessler tricked me, he showed me a different wheel than this,' etc.
      Stop pretending you're not Ken. It's so pathetic.

      Delete
    10. Trevor, I think Bessler meant that one crossbar would barely keep his wheel turning, not that it would stop (but it could have considering friction). Adding more crossbars would add more potential driving force to the wheel.

      Keep with the pendulums. I think you are on the right track.

      Have you ever studied two stage oscillators? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are the solution, but there is something that has to be learned from the pendulum swing. Bessler said "Greed is an evil root". Working with 2SO's, I finally came to understand what (I think) he meant. Greed has be be kept in check otherwise you will get no where. Greed is a metaphor for something else ...

      ->

      Delete
    11. Yes,..I think there is a delicate balance between input(ie.the prime mover)and the output. If you try to draw too much from them they will be dampened down to a stop.
      The excitation of the pendulums must not be hindered by the load.

      Delete
    12. My post about my wheel doing 30+ turns is nothing to worry about.
      Any wheel without any weights or with excited weights will do the same,that is,..until the polariser is switched on.
      Thats all I can risk saying just now.

      Delete
    13. I can’t make out anything…what’s a polarizer?...Does it require to be electrically switched on?...Are you operating on the computer simulator or involved in a direct build?...Do you think you are on the verge of attaining success?...is it a simple wheel or different from the original?...anyway, good luck…

      Delete
    14. Extreemly simple wheel,..almost beautiful.
      The polariser is the device that determines the direction in which it can turn.
      Without it the wheel fights to go both ways so it just wobbles to a standstill.

      Delete
    15. By the way,..it is a mechanical switch.

      Delete
    16. Good...Bessler's one way wheel always weighed more on the descending side...are you building a two-way rotating wheel?...Can we have some good news by tomorrow?...how many weights?...

      Delete
    17. Trevor, I agree that 30+ turns doesn't mean much. Just now I got out my small precision gyroscope, spun its axle between my finger and thumb (to only about 2 revs per second) and it did 164 revolutions before stopping.

      One critical test of a Bessler wheel is: Can it *accelerate* from a low initial speed up to its full speed in a short time? According to 'sGravesande's account, Bessler's 12ft Kassel wheel reached its full speed of 25 to 26 rpm in less than two turns.

      Delete
    18. Trevor, wouldn't rectifier be a better term for what you've described?

      -Ed

      Delete
    19. I am using skate bearings Arktos,..so I guess there is more friction there.
      Once I switch in the polariser,which I did not know what else to call it,it's more like a catch ratchet,.. I'm hoping it will take off.
      ED,.. we use the term rectifier in electronics and I did not want to give the impression that I was using any kind of electricity.

      Delete
    20. @Arktos,
      I thought the Kassel wheel took 2-3 turns (not just 1 turn). Also, I would not feel like downplaying Trevor's 30 turns - I can't imagine he would just have pushed an empty wheel. But as soon as you add moveable parts, you no longer get to do a simple spin (not in my wheels, anyway), because the moving parts create their own action. Of course, one of the clever approaches would be to use the force of the wheel in the direction which it wants to go (a bit like Judo). Still - no trivial achievement in my eyes.

      Delete
    21. Mimi, at the risk of sounding over-pedantic, that "two or three turns" has always been a mis-translation of 'sGravesande's report. (It also has some other omissions). He says "... il a pris en moins de deux tours sa plus grande célérité..." Not "deux ou trois tours", just "deux". Two.

      I still insist that a successful wheel must be able to accelerate!

      Delete
    22. Arktos, thanks for the information from sGravesande - that is new and important for me. And yes, I agree that the wheel must accelerate.

      Delete
    23. Mimi,..Sorry I may have been mis-understood here.
      I meant that one innitial push with an empty wheel will give me 30 turns and the same with a full wheel of free swinging pendulums.
      Once the catchment device is engaged then the wheel should accelerate on it's own even with a slight push.

      Delete
  13. Not unless a code is discovered, we'll never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Codes will never ever do it!

      Delete
    2. I know what Bessler left behing in published and unpublished documents would hold up in any court/trial to prove Bessler was the original inventor. He even clearly wrote he would patent his devicde through publicatiions in the year 1717. Why would he lie about it in public, and at the same time miss the chance to claim his rights if the invention was stolen? Why did he put all the work down hiding all the information if it was not to prove the rights to the invention?

      Delete
    3. The only way is to crack the code .

      Delete
    4. 0ystein, I think you were asked this before but I'm not sure if you replied. Can you say whether the information you are deciphering is exact, or does it require some level of interpretation? I hope you can answer this as it will help us know if the wheel that comes from that information can be taken literally to be Bessler's (with no doubt).

      Thanks. dg

      Delete
    5. Oystein said 'He even clearly wrote he would patent his devicde through publicatiions in the year 1717.' And thats the year DT was published! In there we see the Merseburg and Kassel wheels in two views but those tell us nothing that gives Bessler any sort of 'priority' just wheels with ropes on their axles. There are only two other figures left which could be used to 'patent' his device in DT. The portraits! Forget anything else and focus on those portraits. They should be a major topic on any blog or site dedicated to Besslers wheels.

      mike

      Delete
    6. First dg: The information is exact, but more important it is consistant throughout his work. Meaning that you can work with a variety of Besslers pages and get the same resault if you know the "trigger" and "the keys". On the contrary, if some information just appears on a single page it is treated as "not valid" until appearing on several places. (kept in mind, but not used) Until now I have found somewhere around 15 pages that can be proven to hold information hidden from "normal view".

      Secondly: mike: If you only found the resault in "one" page (like the portraits), the resault can not be said to be consistant and therefor would be an interpretation.

      That is the way I work anyway.

      Best wishes

      Delete
    7. 0ystein, sorry if I missed a previous post, but are you deciphering the drawings or the written text? dg

      Delete
    8. In a way both. But mostly all the published drawings, including some MTs and lastly some published textpages. But not the kind of letter-"decoding" as reffered to as "bible-codes", or lettersubstitutes etc. Letters can also contain hidden graphical/geometrical/numeric information in the same way as a picture can. In the present time where there are other ways to secure and protect information we don`t use those tecniques anymore, so it is harder for us to comprehend now.

      Delete
    9. Thanks 0ystein, you have helped me understand the process. Good luck. dg

      Delete
  14. Not exactly anon...hey, by the way, aren't we forgetting something here...We don’t seem to remember the basic reason why Bessler invented the wheel in the first place, do we?...
    If I am not miserably wrong, I read somewhere that Bessler came up with this idea so that he can have a lot of cash to start some free institution in Christian name…for a noble cause, isn’t it?...and this also goes to prove his genuineness, doesn’t it?...

    ReplyDelete
  15. If he was serious about starting a school, he could have enlisted Karl's help.
    He chose not to go that route, and retired. His writings are schooling some of us.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well,,,atleast it goes to prove his actual genuine christian intentions to some extent...i mean his legitimacy...

    ReplyDelete
  17. You require much more money to start that sort of a school…and, moreover, he had already borrowed enough from karl for his existence….he didn't chose to retire suddenly…destiny took him away in a cruel manner…we need to really go deeper to understand the real Bessler, Doug…

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is like the bible code, if you read it a certain way well then that proves it .
    I know I could prove just about anything with it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Primemignonite6 April 2013 at 01:00

    Seemingly, the ghost of Ken will be forever with us in some TG-like haunting or other.

    IF it is truly not he that is lurking around sill, and commenting as this-or-that pseudo identity, then why does not THE REAL KEN appear and comment that he is not that one absolutely, and by such a means so logical be done with it?

    If Ken Behrendt is aware of how his memory is being amplified into some truly weird and gross repute and is concerned as he well should be, why does he not come forward as himself and just POST in his own defense, thereby setting the record straight once-and-for-all?

    Sure, necessarily it is all rhetorical as I here suggest - the real, most likely authentic answer asserting itself but, one can always hope that one is not right, right?

    A suggestion: why not NUMBER the Anonymous correspondents thus:

    Anonymous (1)

    Anonymous (2)

    Anonymous (3)

    and so-forth.

    These would be as selected, assigned profiles as they are taken up but without any name handles, which so many seem to resist.

    This way at least the daring and named of us - Suresh; Oytein; Primemignonite etc. - would KNOW to which Anonymous they're addressing in all cases. As it is now, 'tiz all but guesswork and, thinking wishfully, that they are in fact commenting to/about the right one; i.e. maybe so or, maybe not.

    Does THIS (at least) make some sense?

    With such a condition as having happily materialized, then John might declare "number yourselves!!!" and that would be that: sanity once again having a good chance to reign!

    Just my two cents-worth.

    James



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This makes some sense...I agree with you please...

      Delete
    2. Absolutely, James.

      I've been reading through all these threads and it is horribly confusing as to which Anon is talking.

      Please, please, please John do something about it.

      Having 56 grandchildren is bad enough but at least they have different names (though some of them double up with their aunts and uncles).

      Delete
  20. It's going to take more than a code!
    Good luck to all!

    ReplyDelete
  21. This also makes great sense…Codes can’t clear everything…moreover, if we achieve anything by breaking the codes then the satisfaction of achieving success through one’s own original efforts can’t be relished…

    Does it makes any sense Doug?…
    I still fail to understand why use the term Anonydougone instead of just Doug…

    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...