Tuesday, 19 March 2013

Relate your breaks - but restrain your claims.

It's hard to come up with a snappy title!

The issues in the comments section of this blog tend to centre on people's theories about how they see Bessler's wheel working.  Many of us theorise about the energy source and how it can be used.  I have tried over a number of years to convince everyone that Bessler's wheel was genuine and have offered more than one theory about how it might fit in with current thinking in the world of physics.  I tried this method, as well as building wheels, in order to help those scientists who were willing to listen, try to accommodate Bessler's claims within the currently held views on the laws of physics.  

It seemed to me that getting an accredited scientist to support us was a good move towards finding a solution because funded research might be more successful than what we amateurs have been.  As I said in my previous blog this has proved unsuccessful and the chief reason for this has always been obvious to me and it is this.

Perpetual motion machines and gravity wheel are impossible according to the 'experts' and any suggestion that they might be wrong 'evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse'. (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers [New York, 1959], p. 427)

Given that strong belief system, let us imagine that every time we claim to know how the wheel worked we gain the 'expert's' attention for one minute.  Subsequently we honestly admit that we failed, and the next time someone makes a similar claim their attention drops to half a minute, with each claim and failure their attention span reduces until they ignore us altogether and each claim that follows merely reinforces their already impregnable belief system.  So making unsuccessful claims is confirming them in their opinion and we are perceived as 'crying wolf'.

I often say there is only one piece of evidence that they will accept and that is a working model and that is what we must produce.  BUT...having said that I completely understand why people get so excited about their current ideas that they are working on.  I've been there many times and I am guilty as anyone for making public my strong belief that this time I have really cracked it, only to find that I was wrong.

There is another aspect to this that we have ignored so far and that is the excitement that such claims ignite in us.  I find it stimulating and exhilarating to read of other people's enthusiasm and optimism and I don't want the previous thoughts about 'crying wolf' to stop those claims but perhaps in some cases we could tone down the claims that we have cracked it, into thoughts that we think/hope we are on to something.  But I don't want to dampen people's enthusiam for telling us how they are doing, I'd prefer encouragement and positivity.

So keep us enthused with your optimism and belief and don't be afraid of admitting if you got it wrong this time, just keep trying, remember Dave Fishwick's, 'Never give up. Never, ever give up!'



  1. Well said John!


  2. Well put John,..and I do agree , it is not a good idea to get support or funding for research.
    The reason being that partners want results and that means pressure to perform,which destroys creativity.You cannot have lateral thinking without creativity and the wheel requires a lot of that!
    I also feel it is important to relate your theories,successful or otherwise because it does spur others on when they see progress.
    All the remarks made are useful in stimulating the brain along new lines of thought.
    We are only seen 'as crying wolf'by those jealous people who are so board with doing nothing at their computers,but they want results so they can grab and run away with information about a successful working wheel.
    We are not braggers,we just want to share.

  3. I agree we should be more careful making grandiose claims. After all, a working wheel -and nothing else- will convince those in the academia curious and open-minded enough to take a look. But that's only a fraction of the entire Pantheon. But don't for a moment think that it will be easy - as Bessler in his time found out too. All hell will break loose and claims of fraud, deception, scientific schlock and -of course- claims of Violation Of The Hallowed Laws (even if not true) will abound.

    In Besslers time that might have lead to literally the stake or the rope, in our time to complete destruction of personal (and especially academic) credibility. Hence our proof must be rock-solid. TUV or similar independent laboratories should certify it, or at least that's what I would do.

    And then, after much brahaha and many more flashes in the pan, some (less open-minded) academia might eventually come forward and -after extensive research- grudgingly declare that it *may* indeed work but doesn't violate this or that or the other thing because [fill in the blanks], and most certainly isn't perpetual motion and-so-forth. They'll come up with some nifty exception to The Hallowed Laws and all is well again in the Ivory Tower.

    I also don't have the illusion that "free" energy will solve everything for everybody and make us "free" from the energy cartels, the oil (robber) barons, the Gov't or whatever powers-that-be. To believe that would be naive, and never will be the case, even if the energy indeed becomes dirt cheap. Why? Because human nature -not necessarily the Gov't- will take care of that. History could teach us some very profound lessons there. Human nature doesn't change rapidly and is probably one of the very few true constants in the universe. As is human stupidity, and greed, and struggles for control and power. So have no illusions there.

    But it *can* a lot of good, that is for sure.

    1. That's *can do*. Sorry for that.

    2. "In Besslers time that might have lead to literally the stake or the rope, in our time to complete destruction of personal (and especially academic) credibility."

      What a load of nonsense. If you have a working wheel, which is so simple even a carpenter's boy can build it, then thousands of others will build copies, and that is the end of that - NOBODY can then doubt it.

    3. Assuming those that re-descover it, open-source it, you're right. But we're talking academics, not open source.

  4. Claiming success or a runner without actually having one may reflect poorly on the individual making the claim, but I'm not sure how much on us as a group, or the idea of PM in general. Making snap decisions and judgements is human nature and what drives us to our goals.

    What concerns me more are the outright claims by individuals about the way things work, as if this is the absolute truth. This blog and every other PM site is filled with this garbage. Unless there is some written law or proof to back up your statement, you should lead your claim with "in my opinion", as nothing makes me more skeptical of someone than hearing claims unfounded in fact. There is a widespread creation of facts in this industry and I believe it is more damaging to us all than failed runner claims, as we all end up looking like amateurs and in some cases snake oil salesmen.

  5. John I believe the priveledge to say anything on your blog should be accompanied by a name and address.
    This way people will be careful not to say anything cutting that would offend others.
    A democratic right to speak carries with it responsibility to behave toward others.

    1. Hilarious. We can't have people questioning what you say, can we, Trevor?

      "This way people will be careful not to say anything cutting that would offend others."

      My, you are a delicate soul...

      Your desire to deny people the right to free speech is FAR more offensive than anything anybody might say about you and your endless claims to have found the solution...

    2. Ok, Trevor, what is your address?

    3. Yes please fulfill your democratic responsibility and give us your address.

    4. Trevor…I have a feeling that it is Doug in the garb of anon playing the game(But I could be wrong)…Second comes ED or and then it could be anyone else…TG wouldn’t do such a thing…he was too outright and you know what happens when one is too frank…if lately he had made a negative post or two that is because he was outcast without proper justice…that is understandable…I suggest we bring in TG to balance things out…he must have already realized his mistake by now…Some anons create havoc and not much is actually being done against them…
      Why it could be Doug?...because he always opposes…sometimes directly and sometimes not so directly…but whatever it is, it is an act of cowardice…playing devil’s advocate, you remember?…it’s the complex…tendency to look down on others…desperation of being unable to contribute possible clues to the building of Bessler wheel…They seem to forget the very reason they were here initially…
      Bessler too faced such things in those days…there was no regulatory system in place then… we all know what happened finally…suppression…should it be allowed to happen again now?
      I don’t say that it is bad…but the manner in which the language is used…no one should be allowed to abuse anyone else…you know, when lions attack a buffalo other buffalos rush in…this is not happening here…anons rule the roost…criticism is necessary in a democratic living but it must be healthy…whose fault it is really?...
      When someone tries to make some genuine contribution brick-bat usually follows…this has become a great pain in the neck…we can just keep ignoring all this, but how long?
      I am extremely sorry for all this but it is high time something is done…
      Suggested action:
      Bring in TG, make things clear to anon, delete abusive mails instantly, follow Buffalo rule, Sometimes it is reqd to praise the anons also...they too do make appreciable statements…

    5. I don't mind if people disagree but then they must say why and give proof.

      You always do it in a mocking derogatory way without substantiation.

  6. " I've been there many times and I am guilty as anyone for making public my strong belief that this time I have really cracked it, only to find that I was wrong."

    The understatement of the year - LOL. And so many of us told you so, at the time, but you didn't believe us...

  7. The scientific community doesn't laugh when they hear some of us say we did it only to later find out something went wrong. What they laugh at are the ridiculous claims made by some. We're all experts at something, whether it's cutting down trees or building motor engines. We can tell a bullshitter when we hear one. Same with the scientists. The must think we are a bunch of rank amateurs.

    1. I'm not talking about claims of success, I'm talking about claims about the physical world. Below is an example made in reference to pendulums.

      "They are the only devices that do not sap energy from the wheel".

      So what proof is there that pendulums are the only devices that do not sap energy from the wheel? This is a minor example, but some are some really crazy ones out there. Claims about gravity, claims about CF, claims about what Bessler was thinking. You name it. From a physicist's point of view, we all look like a bunch of silly kids that don't know anything, and yet we are the ones claiming to be the experts, the pioneers in the field.

    2. We really need an Edit button ...

    3. Okay Anon,..Where is your name before you criticise.
      I made that comment!
      I said it because I was talking about free pendulums and that you can't challenge.

  8. It seems that many people here care a lot about what scientists etc might think. I can respect that view, but it's the opposite of mine. I have known quite a few scientists, engineers etc from my university days, and then in my career as a professional engineer. With a very few good, notable exceptions, most of the academic ones prove George Bernard Shaw's dictum "He who can does, he who cannot teaches" and frankly I couldn't care less what they think.

    For me, the possibility of solving the Bessler wheel mystery is all about the intellectual challenge of finding an operating principle, and later on, perhaps, the physical challenge of building a prototype. None of that will be influenced in the least by the opinions of scientists or others.

    1. Nor do I care about their opinions. The intent of my post was to say if making false claims hurt our cause, it would be the unsubstantiated claims about motion and physics, and not the claims about whether we jumped the gun on saying we had a runner.

    2. I never ever said I had a runner!

  9. I know why I'm comming under attack.
    It's because my openess about progress has them worried that I might be close to success and that,they can't stand.

    1. Looks like you are starting to attract the attention of the 'Ignorami'! Before you know it they will be trying to get you kicked out of here!


    2. Ignore the attacks, Trevor. Remember: There is no greater revenge than success!

  10. Nice to read that some are calling for tg's return. Yes, he is missed by many and only now beginning to be apprieciated for what he contributed here. I also wonder why the pm 'community' is so concerned about impressing academia. I could care less what they think. I alos favor 'enthusiasm' about pm (and other subjects) even when one does not quite have it proved yet because I know that the 'Ignorami' hate that spirit. They want no one to make any progress unless it is them making it. They will insult, ridicule, and sabotage as much as they can to prevent any progress from happening. Also the pm 'community' has no monopoly on these losers. They can be found in any field. Their attitude is that if they did not make a discovery then it cant be made and anyone claiming to do so deserves all of the punishment they can inflict on them. Thats not just happening on this one blog and you can find it rampant like cancer throughout the internet.


    1. Mike, what? No part two? Justsomeone

  11. Of course it is JUST as John advises.

    We would do better by not crowing too loud too soon.

    When The Thing TURNS of it's very own self, THEN the Champagne, Havanas and whatever else for purposes of deserved revelry.

    How could it be otherwise?


    Trevor on 19 March 2013 19:15 said:

    "John I believe the priveledge to say anything on your blog should be accompanied by a name and address.
    This way people will be careful not to say anything cutting that would offend others.
    A democratic right to speak carries with it responsibility to behave toward others."

    This I second. On all points this Trevor is spot-on. (Or, at very least a name handle?) Harm intenders would be more careful, knowing that their petty inward but projected cruelties would be noted duly, and associated forever with their profile - just infamy and then exile possibly following.

    The presence and actions of the Anons (the ones going unsigned usually) have a clearly disintegrating effect on civility, and way too often do damage to desired peaceable dialogue. They can and do attack viciously and without heart, from their hiding places of cowardice, risking nothing whatever with their frequent sick jabs and pokings.

    I ask: IS this a civilized arrangement; it and it's resulting near-maddening effects???

    Also to the jury . . . I shall leave this judgement.


    "-Ed" is REAL; I know him. He is a long-time respondent over at BWF and when rankled, takes no prisoners after targeting any too far out, hapless opponents. Once over there, when I first dared show up seven years ago now, I was tried and convicted by him! (Fortunately that judgement was overturned on-appeal, and I survived to forge a brilliant career of becoming a non-entity, up to the very end. It is all a matter of public record. Right Ed? :-)

    And finally,

    "Anonymous 19 March 2013 22:06

    We really need an Edit button ..."

    Yes, to this I agree, in order to disabuse ourselves of his hiding, ill-intending like . . .



  12. Suresh, why don't you take your friend Trevor's advice and give proof before making accusations?

    Why don't I get an advocate when Trevor jumps on me in a derogatory way for "being out of line"
    and then "talking in code"? Why don't either of you say anything about "mike" or Chris Wilson, both have
    been very derogatory to this blog and to John himself?

    Trevor, as for your proof... you shall have it!

    Trevor Dauncey - 8 April 2012 12:10
    "The banging noise had nothing to do with the power output,as Bessler said,so it's quite feasible to use pads or a folding chain which would have zero noise.
    Sorry I can only say this because I know how the wheel works,which I will reveal soon.
    This statement seems to upset some people,but what else can I say."

    Page 358 - John Collins AP book
    Bessler actually says:
    "The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else."

    Also you are again saying you "know how the wheel works". This may not be the words "I have a runner",
    but people will logically assume that this kind of talk means you have a runner and this is HOW you KNOW
    the wheel works, otherwise how could you KNOW? THAT is why some people get upset. You would draw less negativity
    if you choose your words better, but I suspect you write that way purposely?

    James, yep, it is on record. Another incident where I was jumped on wrongfully. :-)


    1. Tg repeatedly stated that he 'knew' how Bessler's wheels worked from the dt portrait clues yet he also always said he still did not 'have it' (was 99.5%, 99.9%, etc of the way there). When someone here says they 'know' how Bessler's wheels worked they usually mean they only have a general idea and are working toward filling in details. That is the nature of ongoing research which you would understand if you were actually an active wheel builder. Also as far as me being 'derogatory' is concerned I only tell it like I see it and I'm sure that can make here some 'hot under the collar'. For that I am sorry but maybe it will 'motivate' them to get the lead out of their asses and do something relevant for a change instead of keeping the pile of 'entertaining banter' here growing until it finally hits the moon! Since tg left Jan 8 this year I have yet to learn anything new about Bessler's wheels. I was also very disappointed about the 'tease' concerning Oystein's decoding of MT 'clues' in the last few blogs. That really irritated me (and others I'm sure).


    2. No "mike". What irritates me, is you! I said I wouldn't feed the parasite, but this time you've spoken directly to me, so I will respond.

      But first, you haven't just "told it like it is" you've actually insulted John and his blog a number of times, and he has given you far more latitude then I would have. If it were my blog, your TG rants would be deleted instantly.

      Produce something relevant you say? Hmmm. I must have missed that thing you have produced.

      By the way, if you are not TG and you could not hook up with him, then how do you know he has gone as of Jan 8? John has not banned him, nor told him to leave, just that he needs to reduce his comment length. For all you know, he is here now and just has not commented in a while? But he IS you, right?

      I love to break it to you, but TG (you) is not a builder. By his own words, he chooses to exclusively stick to simulations and clues he "finds" in a picture that likely has nothing to do with Bessler, let alone contains any clues put there by Bessler. I have seen an email from the actual Ken B. recently, via mutual correspondent, and he is also going on about simulations with springs and the two portraits and clues. Coincidence?

      TG saying he (you) is 99.5 or 99.9 percent of the way there shows how ignorant he (you) is! You can only know how close you were in hindsight once you have a working machine.

      In 1901 Wilbur Wright said "Man will not fly for 50 years." after one of their failures and two years later came success! Unfortunately with PM, only the opposite has happened, so far...

      Now to you assumption... I actually do research and coming up with my own ideas based on that research (not cry about not learning anything new on a blog), ideas that seemed like "there was no way they could't work", only to find out that I was wrong about some little aspect when finalizing the idea at the BUILDING stage. I've repeated this process hundreds of times over the years. I also have a research partner to bounce ideas off of, use computers as tools to help weed out lesser ideas, and build the better ideas. Just because I don't constantly give little "how close" updates doesn't mean I'm not a builder.

      Usually what happens is someone has an idea and wants to hang on to the thought that it works as long as possible, because it sucks to find out that they were wrong and then have nothing. I can relate, but I choose to exhaust the idea as soon as I can and move on to another one, hoping to eventually find the solution and prove it with the final build.

      But, like Trevor, I will never give up, until I or someone else solves it or I am dead. However, you have to fit this stuff in with life. If you wallow around with the same idea, instead of proving whether it will or will not work, you have nothing but an idea. You can always take a break and come up with another idea.

      Like Edison, you will have thousands of ways NOT to do it, and that's progress!


    3. Thanx for that long and exhausting rant. I hope it made you feel better like say a good bm after being constipated for a week! Ha,ha, ha.

      Sorry if you think I'm insulting Collins because I do actually like the man. I think if anything I'm very disappointed at his handling of the 'Tg incident'. From his comments its obvious Tg is a very serious researcher and its a damn shame what happened (on Jan 8 this year). I'd rather believe that it was due to the 'Igoranti' brainwashing tactics Collins was exposed to than to any sort of jealously on the part of Collins because tg did not agree that Collins kiiking approach had anything to do with the actual design Bessler found. It was obivous tg liked Collins and wanted to spare his feelings about this disagreement while also trying to nudge him and others here along the 'right track' path he had found from the dt portraits after years of work with them.

      If you are an active wheel builder than great and that helps to up my respect for you another notch. One (me) would never guess it from your comments here which I also found to be 'derogatory' and 'insulting' at times. Maybe the problem is pm research can make people very cranky at times (like in your comment above!). In the pm field every one serious is constatnly struggling to find something that works and failing over and over and over again. The frustration levels are skyhigh. This is made worse when one turns to the internet or the Bessler literature and still finds no real answers. Anyway that's why I was stunned by tg's departure. He claimed that after years of intense research he had found some answers that had brought him 99.5% of the way to final success. He did not sound to me like the type who would lie or be deluded about that. As for tg being welcome here that is not the impression that I or others had on Jan 8. Collins said he did not want him posting here anymore and he promptly left. Yes he also said he could come back with short comments occasionally, but tg has yet to take him up on the offer. I think tg said earlier that he only wanted to comment here if he could actually provide new information about the Bessler wheel mechanisms and could not do that with short 'tweet-like' comments that Collins suddenly decided (after the 'Ignorami' went to work on him!) were only acceptable here. Apparently, tg and Collins had two different opinions about what this blog should provide. It seems like Collins is mainly interested in accumumlating 'entertaining banter' here while tg wanted it to bring serious wheel builders closer to actually solving the Bessler wheel puzzle. Well, maybe tg will come back some day and find a way to make both Collins and himslef happy. I like to think compromise is always possible. I certainly hope he does it soon!


    4. So you use 509 words to respond to my "long and exhaustive" 568 words?

      As you know, TG's typical posts were over 600 words long and every day he also had many 1200+ word posts "updates". These were long and exhaustive to most everyone else, whether you want to believe it or not. On his last post, after John asked him to reduce the size or leave, he still felt the need to post 640 words!

      In reference to your previous comment above, starting with "Apparently, tg and Collins had two different opinions..."

      Anyone with half a brain can understand that this is John's blog, and that his opinion is the only one that matters. Period! If John only wanted "banter", that is his business. He doesn't need to compromise. There is no freedom of speech rights. If anyone doesn't like the way John runs things, they should leave. Not leaving and complaining / insulting the owner and his guests, changing the subject to their own, is the very definition of a troll. If you can't see that, then YOU are the ignoramus!

      "mike", would you leave if John asked you to, emulating you hero TG, or would you just come back as "dick" and keep complaining TG and mike are not here?


  13. I'm truly sorry ED.If we can forget the past and start afresh we can then communicate as a team.
    I would never have been so angry if I was not attacked first by those nameless anons who laughed at my efforts and actually said I would never ever find perpetual motion.
    You know how that gets to me because I don't believe in never.
    I am always up for a challenge especially on my pet subject.

    1. Thanks Trevor. No problem. Truce sounds good.


  14. A machine that could power itself and other machines wouldn't make any noise at all. Noise represents energy loss.
    Now I'm a coward? Because I say things that you don't like to hear, or that you don't have a good reply for, like on the last blog? Who are the real cowards?

  15. I actually like the " tell it like it is " kind of guys, anons or not. Most do it in a respectfully way but to some the truth hurts. Justsomeone

  16. I still believe that calling it perpetual motion is to do harm, that term alone will turn off scientists like a wall switch. The wheel is not perpetual motion. it has a source of energy and that is gravity. If we want people to listen we need to use the appropriate terms.

    1. Personally I like the term gravity converter.

    2. Motion Wheel ...

  17. Science says gravity is not energy, so the wall switch is still in the off position.
    Gravity requires energy input to show output and the output is equal to the input.
    So if you call it perpetual motion, or gravity converter, etc., it doesn't matter.

  18. The weights placed inside Bessler wheel always remain a little above the ground permanently... never ever in contact with the earth directly.... thereby always possessing potential energy...in other words, work or energy input done in advance...
    In one way, it can be said that the weights are always charged up and what really Bessler found was a way of tapping this energy source...
    Now, tell me, what is wrong in this explanation...

  19. Well.. science says the input in advance equals the output in the future, minus irretrievable losses.
    Once the cycle completes, the weights are in the same position relative to the original reference point from the ground, and nothing has changed, gravity didn't add or subtract anything; their potential output is *less* than the original input that placed them a little obove ground because they were working against frictional losses.

  20. Alright...The lever advantage employed along with another innovative Technic, (secret climbing Technic) that is also employed to quickly raise the weights in a much shorter path, go to compensate for the irretrievable losses....And, secondly, the cycle is never allowed to get completed due to the special design...the weights can't rest as another lever with weight attached gets to swing making the weights to seek punctum quietus...endlessly...

    Thus, the cycle goes on...

  21. Wow, where to begin.
    If the cycle is never allowed to complete, how does your wheel turn?
    The shorter path is the classic non-runner, using secret techniques. Countless examples abound.
    Lever advantage is good for 1 (one) turn. After that, the levers becomes useless, and actually make your wheel stop even sooner than if they weren't in it. If the weights at each end are equal and the lever is offset on the fulcrum, then the weight on the long end lifts the short end once. If the weights are unequal and the lever is centered on the fulcrum, the heavy weight lifts the lighter weight once. In both cases, the lever becomes bottom heavy because gravity is a constant, it can't be turned off or manipulated.
    It only goes on in our imagination unless energy is being transformed.

  22. It is not like that, actually...

    The arrangement is such that one cycle after another keep occurring making the wheel turn perpetually...The system doesn't actually depends on lever advantage alone...several other factors play key role...(if I state here everything it would just be a giveaway) the weights at each end are equal no doubt...when one pair completes its cycle the second pair gets into the act...and this is what goes on inside...

    You have stated that lever advantage is good for one turn...yes I agree...it is good for one turn for one pair...at the moment this pair nears its stoppage the second pair is ready to begin...that is why I always insist that we should experiment with all the 8 weights...they are interdependent...We needn't try to turn off or manipulate gravity...in fact, gravity is useful both ways...for bringing down the weights on the descending side as well as for aiding the lever-weight attachments to rise at the ascending side...thanks to another smart innovation that makes this possible...
    The lever may become bottom heavy but this is well taken care of by another smart factor...it goes on like this transforming the potential energy all the while...

    The problem is not in the system I am explaining, it is actually in the way I am trying to convey...I can only give hints at the moment as it would be too premature to give away the entire thing...Bessler too didn't give away all the clues...
    Tell me what exactly I stand to gain if I am trying to misguide others...It may all be too unbelievable but bessler did find a way and we are all aware of it...and that is why we are all here...

  23. If our view is narrow we can’t see the entire thing…
    It is actually a matter of design…the design that bessler came up with is such that it is not seen anywhere normally…it is unique…each component has been very thoughtfully made…the weights, eight in all, work in pairs like see-saw in their efforts to OB the wheel…it is difficult to believe on hearsay…that is why everyone insist on a runner…
    For example, let us look into what actually happens on the descending side … weight number one takes the plunge by swinging and lands just near 3pm o clock creating the leverage due to the gravity effect on it. This weight is at an advantageous position performing useful work till it hits the 6pm position…
    The fast swing on the descending side actually provides valuable time gain by conveying the weight to the 3pm position for leverage to occur…this is again brought about by gravity, unmistakably…
    This process goes on with respect to the other weights … These actions make the wheel in general to turn…
    We can conclude that gravity has been very efficiently used to cause the swing, to gain time and to ensure that the weight performs useful work to its optimum limit till it reaches the 6pm position to turn the wheel in general…
    On the ascending side, the weights do not follow the normal path…they take a shorter route keeping close to the axle while climbing…it is here that a very top secret innovative method or Technique is used to reduce the weight of the ascending weights and to save time by adopting a quick innovative lifting method. Four different factors work in unison to ensure that the weights are lifted effortlessly in an astonishing manner…These methods actually work like miracle to keep the wheel motion going…the cycle is repeated…
    I agree this is unbelievable, but it is a fact which even Bessler hesitated to reveal for fear of losing the secret…

  24. Science doesn't deal with miracles. There are no secrets. You just don't understand the physical principles involved. When you and others say "it would be a giveaway" or whatever, what you really are saying is "I don't understand why OB wheels are impossible".

  25. In the coming years, when someone happens to come up with a real working wheel based on the above discussed pattern, what would be your reactions?
    And, in the meanwhile, what real role are you going to play? aren't you already on to something or are you totally against the belief that Bessler wheel is possible?
    What then really made you to appear in this blog initially?

    Science may not deal with miracles but it is always trying to unravel one mystery after another...
    Bessler wheel design is unique...bessler hit upon it after so much of efforts, rejecting one after another...It is said that he tried more than 300 such designs...it wasn't even easy for Bessler...
    I may not know the physical principles involved...you are right...It is good that it is so...If I really knew the principles I would have ended up as another non-believer...

    You just stated above that Lever advantage is good for 1 (one) turn. After that, the levers becomes useless, and actually make your wheel stop....well, the matter doesn't ends there...
    Specialized levers working in tandem never allow the wheel to stop...As I said earlier it is the design that matters...designed not to stop...as simple as that...

  26. You say that “Lever advantage is good for 1 (one) turn. After that, the levers becomes useless, and actually make your wheel stop even sooner than if they weren't in it.”
    You say that “If the weights at each end are equal and the lever is offset on the fulcrum, then the weight on the long end lifts the short end once.”
    You say that “If the weights are unequal and the lever is centered on the fulcrum, the heavy weight lifts the lighter weight once.”
    You say that “In both cases, the lever becomes bottom heavy because gravity is a constant, it can't be turned off or manipulated.”
    You say that “It only goes on in our imagination unless energy is being transformed.


Why did Bessler Use Embedded Codes?

It seems clear enough that Bessler had always intended to insert coded information embedded within his publications, because by applying a s...