Friday, 15 March 2013

Review of Øystein Rustad's two videos on decoding Johann Bessler's Riddles.


I often receive emails telling me that this person or that person has decoded clues, knows how the wheel works, or wants to share what they know if I will only sign an NDA.  I've been aware that Øystein Rustad has been working on Bessler's coded clues for several years but until recently I did not know how much progress he had made.  He allowed me to view two videos he has made which show the decoding of two drawings from Maschinen Tractate and I have to admit I was stunned; I agreed to write a review of the videos, which follows.  I'm only sorry I cannot share their content now but it will be available at some point in the future.

Øystein Rustad kindly invited me to review two videos he has made which explain how he decoded two of Bessler's drawings from his Maschinen Tractate.

My first impression upon seeing the content within the videos is that it was presented in a clear, logical progression and is undeniably correct.  Bessler has, as usual, managed to hide within one piece of work, two and sometimes three parallel messages.  Each message is easily proven once you know how to decode it and this is what Øystein Rustad has achieved.  It has often been suggested that my own speculative attempts to extract some meaning from Bessler's codes relies too heavily on my subjective view of the apparent clues, and that they are in some cases imaginary; in these two videos the evidence that the codes are real and were deliberately placed there by Johann Bessler is beyond doubt.

The messages are partly geometrical with alphanumeric constituent parts cleverly incorporated within the drawings themselves.  The two videos relate to two of the Maschinen Tractate drawings but in these particular cases Øystein assures me that the clues in the videos that was shown to me, do not contain a description of the actual mechanism, although they apparently contain vital information regarding the way it is designed to function.

I understand that Øystein has so far decoded about ten drawings requiring more than an hour of video.  This is because he has found that some drawings require two or more stages of decoding and I assume it would be confusing to try to explain the process in one video segment.  I have not seen these other drawings decoded so I do not know if the process is as interesting as those I have seen already, but I’m assured they have been treated as rigorously as those I have seen.

I would like to say more about the videos but to do so would require that I detail some of the code and I have given my word that I would not give away any information about them. As is his right, Øystein has withheld information about the actual mechanism until such a time as he can produce evidence of its functionality, so I am unable to comment on the usefulness or otherwise, of the information he had managed to extract.

Øystein Rustad has made significant progress in decoding Bessler's extremely cleverly hidden messages and I look forward to when he is ready to reveal all of  it.

That's all for now but watch this space.  I intend to place the review on my web site at www.theorffyreuscode.com

JC

131 comments:

  1. John, with all due respect (uh-oh :D) given your words about your attempts being speculative, subjective and in some cases imaginary, how much weight is this review going to have?

    Besides, saying that one has evidence beyond doubt without releasing any of said evidence, is as useless as saying one has an actual working machine without showing any evidence.

    What is the point in "letting people know", instead of just letting them know by releasing it when actually ready?

    This is the real clincher, "Øystein assures me that the clues in the videos ... do not contain a description of the actual mechanism". So even if one can go along with there actually being a code, there really isn't anything to be gained by the result?

    John, you have long thought that the number five (among other similar things) is a vital piece of information regarding the way it is designed to function, yet I don't see that "fact" leading anywhere, unfortunately. How are we to believe that Øystein's stuff is any different?

    Before anyone gets surprised and upset at this being treated with skepticism, let me ask you how do you expect to have this treated without producing anything?

    Don't tell me people just want to get everything handed to them (one excuse some like to say when people are being skeptical) because you have to expect this. If you don't then you are just being incredibly naive.

    Announcing something without producing anything equals skepticism, ad nauseum.

    Announcing something and producing something weak equals disappointment, ad nauseum.

    Announcing something and producing something great equals excitement, and is rare.

    -Ed

    ReplyDelete
  2. John,
    Oystein Rustad, O.R., did Bessler "see something" back then?
    Stevo Burke, 5 + 5, who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  3. John, I'll admit that some of your enthusiasm is rubbing off on me - it sounds like Oystein has been working very hard and seems to have found something exciting. At the same time, I still have very mixed feelings about trumpeting before the actual proof of the pudding, for reasons that others here have voiced: it spoils it for the whole community when there is a lot of hot air with no backing. I guess we have to just wait and see - which again makes me wonder: why are we being told such tempting tales, if in the end it is too hot for the public? Is the the boulevard press stuff of rumours of love and betrayal? Shouldn't we be a bit more mature?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Could you tell us the two MT drawings the videos were decoding? Thanks, Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh Mimi,..you're such a tease!.. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Justsomeone, I will guess... 137 and 138?

    -Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's based on the "Big Twang Theory", it's 17 & 18.

      Delete
    2. This weasel took the cork out of his lunch...

      Delete
    3. In MT 17 & 18, the weights will try to find equilibrium, as they are doing this, the external cam lifted weight is raised, the sudden release of the external weight,a fraction of a second before the equilibrium point, causes the next weight to catapult over the apex, thereby repeating the process. The pendulum assists with the lift, and regulates the speed of the wheel.
      Hence my nickname for the action being, "The Big Twang Theory".
      Just speculation, but, if you put the external devices together with what's in the drawings, you will see that is the thinking behind it.

      Delete
    4. I forgot to add that, the slight pause caused by the first contact of the cam lobes, starts the catapult action, as the weights will continue to move under their own inertia.

      Delete
  7. In answer to your first comment Ed, my words, " my attempts being speculative, subjective and in some cases imaginary," were merely saying what some people have suggested, yourself included, maybe, in the past. I was trying to draw a distinction between what people such as yourself have thought of my code breaking effots and the more convincing efforts that Oystein has achieved.

    I of course remain convinced that what I have placed on my orffyreus code website is legitimate and convincing.

    As for why I posted this review, well Oystein asked me to, and even though it doesn't include any evidence that anyone can consider, I thought it exciting enough to publish.

    I guess we shall just have to wait for the video whenever that shall be.

    As for your guess Ed - wrong I'm afraid.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh well, 55 and 5 then? ;-)

      Anyway John, I guess excitement is in the eye of the beholder, and since none of us have beheld anything...

      As for my comment of "your" words, I knew what you meant. However, you do seem to have a habit of writing in a bit of a self-deprecating manor. Example:

      "er 68! - Six foot tall,bald, glasses, ...the runt of the litter."

      Obviously I embellish a bit, but you get the idea. :-)

      -Ed

      Delete
    2. I think its a British thing Ed, being self-deprecating - or putting oneself down. We were taught (at least in my school) to use self-deprecating humour to avoid seeming arrogant or pompous. It drives my wife mad - she says 'don't put yourself down, other people will do that!'

      JC

      Delete
    3. She sounds like a smart lady! :-)

      Delete
  8. Mimi, you're right too. In hindsight perhaps it would have been better if I had just added it to my orffyreuscode website.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  9. John, Is Oystein's decoding in anyway similar to the way TG was decoding the portraits? Does Oystein's work in anyway confirm your work or design? Thanks Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would love to see just one clue example from Oystein, from start to finish, to see the logic in his work. That's all it took for me to see that Ken ( TG) was wasting his time! I am not saying that about Oystein. Thanks again, Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  11. I want want do add that people should try to see Besslers wheel and Besslers papers as two linked but seperate things. One of the drawings I solved for John on video are more a school-assignement/project than a patent for the mechanism. As it obviously has a different purpose than showing the mechanism. I guess the page very likely would have been one of Besslers tests for his students, when/if his school had been established. "Fortress of wisdom", wasn´t it the name he wished to use, john? These documents are historical valuable curiosities anyway what you choose to do with the teachings/information from this page (and some others).

    The main reason for me to ask for a public and objective review is that I want to show that I deliver what I say (If anybody should wonder about that at some later stage) and that I am not "afraid" of being "reviewed".

    The second reason for me to aproach John in particular is that he deserves to see some of it, as what he has done with his publishings and his first attempts to find a code has some merit, and it has has without doubt helped me to narrow down my search. So even with a failed attempt at building a wheel from this, the "decoded" documents and the story around them will fill an interesting additional book or DVD about Besslers paperwork and general ingenuinity.

    Best wishes
    Øystein.

    ReplyDelete
  12. One small step...one giant leap...

    ReplyDelete
  13. And If someone should interpret what I wrote the wrong way. (Suresh, nudge nudge)

    The reason for chosing what I chose to show John is that this is actually more proof that the method is sufficiantly understood than just showing him a single mechanism. A "new" mechanism can`t be proven to be correctly "decoded" before it appears consistantly with the same ratios in many different drawings. Close-up, from a distance, extended, tilting this or that way etc. I simply do not intend to show John my many videos of drawings with the same consistant mechanism at the moment. Therefor John was shown something that can`t be refuted and still reaching much further than anything you have seen regarding decoding of Besslers documents. Thus it should be no need to speculate wether I tell the truth about the rest of the material.

    But if someone wants to speculate anyway, please do.

    Best
    Øystein

    ReplyDelete
  14. Øystein,

    I'm glad to hear you are not afraid of being reviewed, but until you are ready to go public, you should probably refrain from talking down from too high of a Bessler pedestal.

    I hope you do have something, and, if you so, you obviously deserve credit for your hard work, but the last thing I care to read about coming to sites like this, is how someone has something, doesn't share the thing, but WILL share little nuggets of "wisdom" derived from the thing which makes their knowledge superior to everyone else's.

    Here are a few questions:

    1) "So even with a failed attempt at building a wheel from this"

    What is your litmus test to prove you have found something, if not a successful build?

    2) Does this decoded information stand on its own with no interpretation required?

    3) What are you current plans to do with this information?

    4) If your material is not clear cut then it will be refuted whether you like it or not, unless you can produce actual results. In what way will you provide evidence to support your assertions if you choose to hold back on certain information?


    Øystein, thanks for your answers and please don't take my questions and comments personally. I would do the same no matter who it was.

    -Ed

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm generally not too easily impressed, but if JC says he's stunned -and convinced of the logic of Øystein's work- then that's more than good enough for me. Surely the mystery isn't solved, but as far as I am concerned this is extremely promising and exciting indeed.

    I'm very much looking forward to hear more if it. Excellent work!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I will answer your questions as clear as I can:

    1. I have not said anything about not wanting to build the thing.
    I just said that the material mainly speaks a special "language", and the "language" is one seperate thing that is exciting to learn and can be proven seperatly. The final test to prove that the mechanism I say he hid, is the same as Bessler used, is to build it as soon as possible. Nothing else has been implied.
    My test so far is to work with the mechanism on my computer as I have been used to do by disproving other possible mechanisms for at least 15 years. Several of these mechanisms working together, behave differently than the ones I disproved in the past years.
    Mening that I have calculated positive torque in the magnitude needed to operate as Besslers wheel did.

    2. There are in general close to non interpretations.
    As an example, it is not possible to make an interpretations about the geometric functions that builds the Apologia drawing. There are only one method to be used that will prove any line or crossingpoint in the drawing. (or outside) If you can`t manage that, you can`t solve all the drawings. It is one part of the "protocol".

    3. The plans are as follows:
    Do a couple of personal videos over again, as I want to present them the best/clearest way if I suddenly need to show them to people I hope to work with. Then since I now live in a house/property that has no heated place to work on machines (and we now are talking -15 celcius and snow), I have to wait a little if I want to work in my garage. In the meanwhile I try to make connections with locals that may be interested in helping me proving the thing by having the ability to build a quick proto. I will share the rights/patent if I am helped. I use/will use, the videos as the background for showing what I have and people can make up their own mind from this if its worth being a part of. Therfore I can not present interpretations or vague material.

    I also will keep in touch with John to see if we can find a way to work together in the future for the best for both of us. He is a resource on all the backgroundmaterial, books, documents, contacts and his work goes nicly together with my "dry" material.

    Best
    Øystein

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for answering my questions. Good luck with your plan and stay warm!

      -Ed

      Delete
    2. 0ystein,

      I know you are excited about the discovery, and rightfully so, but this is turning out to be another TG experience. You are doing all the talking and we would like to follow and be enthusiastic, but with no real visual aid or example to see what you are talking about, it's just a one-sided conversation, and I myself am beginning to lose interest. No offense intended, I'm just making an observation. dg

      Delete
    3. With the difference, of course, that JC has reviewed results and found them stunning.

      Delete
  17. I have found the movement !
    No codes or anything !
    CW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Way to go Chris, me too. Well I found "a" movement, but maybe not "the" movement. I guess when we disclose our inventions, JC can compare our wheels to what he found in Bessler's writings using his newly acquired decipherinator, to verify whether our designs follow Besslers or is something new.

      Delete
    2. I'd like to add that I built something on a whim and although it seemed like a brilliant idea it proved to be uninspired by truth . I thought I was at the end of the line and I was going to give up but I didn't . And so that is the way it has always been for me . But finally I have something that I can truly say is a likeness of said device . I really do not mean to seem off subject . All codes aside , whether they are real or not ... they or anyone else's idea is not how I arrived at this conclusion .
      CW

      Delete
    3. So what you are saying is you did it the old fashioned way, you did it yourself. Well that is something to be especially proud of, and no one can take that away from you.

      Delete
    4. Chris, built on a whim? Isn't that the build you said you would bet your life on that it would work? Did you build the 12ft. Wheel? Every idea you have ever had, NEVER WORK! It's OK to say you have another idea to explore but please stop saying you know how Bessler did anything. Good luck on your new idea. Please post pics. Of your build somewhere. Justsomeone

      Delete
    5. This time Chris really has found the solution.




      Delete
  18. Very soon Anons I'm going to shut you up with a working wheel and what's more without the codes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is always very soon Trevor will have a working wheel, for the last , how many years is it now !


      Delete
    2. Now, now Trevor! LOL

      Delete
    3. I'm not an anon . I always put my initials .
      CW

      Delete
    4. If you really want to know,it's been six years since I first saw John's blog and recognised it as the wheel I had read about 60 years before.
      Even then I was intreged and challenged.
      Now I have been rewarded.It's all over,the solution is in my hands.

      Delete

    5. "Trevor Dauncey3 June 2012 15:51
      Thanks John,..I am trying my best to have my proof of prototype working by the 6 June,if not it will be a week later.
      Enjoy your trip and we'll connect when you get back."

      It is now 9 months later, and no wheel !

      Delete
  19. Øystein,
    Is it safe for me to presume that the information that you have shared with John is the same as - but a further disclosure of - the material that you had posted on the BW Forum during the last few weeks of 2012?
    - Mark

    ReplyDelete
  20. You guys don't read me right . You see , I have put the time in . I have scrutinized Bessler's words over and over again , I have prayed , wept and injured myself for this thing . You may think that am just the usual caliber of enthusiast but you are wrong . I knew a wave could guide a partical before the scientists did . I understand this creation we live in . That is my gift . So I can understand this device that Bessler built simply because , and I say this confidently , It already exists in creation . So please don't assume to correct me on anything I do or say . You will all understand why I say this type pf thing when it is over .
    CW

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you Mark!!! I have all the information I need to know. Nothing here folks. Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Technically, Justsomeone, I'm still waiting for a response.....
      But, I get the feeling that, well... you're welcome?
      :D
      - Mark

      Delete
    2. You must be referring to the "Time to release some information regarding Bessler decoding" Topic on BW by Oystein. Link below.

      http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=104953&highlight=#104953

      Based on this information, it appears that some interpretation or intuition will be required. Not so clear cut on the meaning I am afraid. Of course Oystein is not disclosing everything I am sure.

      Delete
    3. If you exclude MT as Oystein suggests, there aren't that many pictures to decipher and get clues from. Anyone else agree. I also don't see anything remotely similar to what I believe is the prime mover. dg

      Delete
    4. In the Bessler painting he is obviously and simply ( to me an artist myself ) holding down the corner of the book ( which is OFF OF THE TABLE ) showing that he has " defied gravity " .
      CW

      Delete
  22. Wouldn't it be easier , instead of chasing ghosts , as it seems you are doing , to reach down deep inside and find the answer . In the end you will get some satisfaction from doing it yourself . Solve the real mystery . Solve Perpetual Motion . I am more proud of myself than any of you will ever be even if you can "decode " the information .
    CW

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's peculiar to me how people seem so willing to be mislead .
    CW

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes Chris, we know you love yourself. We also know every time you say you know the answer, you are wrong. We also know a week later you will say again " now you have the answer "!!! And on and on and on..... Like you posted on Overunity.com. You have claimed 100's of times to have solved the Bessler mystery and your friends still support you! I like that you are not a quitter but I am very tired of your bragging and self promotion. Humble yourself. Everyone likes a humble person. Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Humble yourself . I can brag and self-promote all I want . If you don't like it , don't read it . Who are you anyway ? For that matter ( mechanically speaking concerning PM ) what have any of you accomplished to make you masters over others ? what have you ever believed that you have accomplished ? Have you troubled yourself ? No is that answer . I no longer care what anyone says to me . If you were smart you'd be doing the same thing as me instead of acting like an authority and presuming to instruct others on their undesirable conduct . This is not grade school or BW forum . I don't owe any of you anything .
      CW

      Delete
    2. I will not be made to feel like I am less than any of you because I you don't know what I know . you have not troubled yourself with this . You just heckle others about their own success ( real or otherwise ) . Why don't you discuss the basis of John's codes or your own
      ( demeaning it seems to me ) screen name ? In other words I'm having a moment so go try and bring someone else down to your level Mr. Perfect .
      CW

      Delete
  25. I am so sick of some of you guys . If you had any details about the " mechanism " you wouldn't be here spouting off vague comments like the above ...
    you'd be building it ! Get a life .

    ReplyDelete
  26. CW found the movement. However, he forgot to jiggle the handle, and now we all smell the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Me too, I found the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Some people have a terrible way of expressing themselves. I do too, so mostly I just shut up and hold everything in. Words don't hurt anyone so give Chris a break.

    We all know everyone is working on their projects and keeping most of the details private, as a good and wise researcher would do, especially if you work in a business environment. I wish this forum were more about giving short updates on your progress, not details of the builds. Everyone is making progress even if it is ruling out certain ideas or builds. I really don't see anyone giving critical details, JC isn't, Trevor isn't, CW isn't, JW isn't, so what's the big deal. Do you really expect someone to just hand you the efforts of their hard work. Forget it, it's not going to happen. It is ok to critique the information JC begins his new subject with, that is the point, but everyone should be content with someone posting their status (not details).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Okay my wheel prototype consisting of two weights is finnished.
    For it to work I just have to install a secret special mechanism that brings it to life.
    I hope that will be monday for all the anons out there that keep reminding me how long it's taking!

    ReplyDelete
  30. You have to at least give me credit for perseverance!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Take this as an encouragement,..The wheel will definitely be solved well before June which 300 years after Bessler first discovered it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are assuming it hasn't already.

      Delete
    2. Have you ever calculated what the lifting potential of you wheel might be?

      Delete
  32. 1712 + 300 = 2012

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on which wheel you are referring to.

      Delete
    2. Year 1712 June is year zero.Year 1713 June is year one.

      Delete
    3. 1712 + 300 = 2012 adding 300 to 1712
      1 + 1 = 2 adding 1 to 1
      1712 + 1 = 1713 adding 1 to 1712
      1712 - 2013 = 301
      That is THREE HUNDRED AND ONE YEARS.

      Delete
    4. I think Trevor is thinking like this :-

      June 1712 to June 1713 = 1 year. The year doesn't end until June 5th 1713, the 300th year doesn't end until 5th June 2013. It's stretching a point but I get his drift.

      JC

      Delete
    5. Is ":-" a clue ?

      Delete
    6. Agreed JC,

      First Anon is thinking anniversary date, not "within" the 300th year, as Trevor may have implied.

      Delete
  33. Whoever brings a runner to the public first may get all the glory, but the person with the greatest power will get all the gold. From what I have seen here, you guys don't stand a chance at the gold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, Bessler couldn't sell his wheel in his time because he was competing against other devices with way more power. It won't stand a chance today if it isn't compact and can at least power a house or at minimum many small appliances. dg

      Delete
    2. We need to concentrate on getting a working wheel first, to prove the concept. Power will come later. Bessler's final wheel could only muster up a few HP, and after years of redesign and building. I admit this is not a good sign, but I'm hoping it was due to the materials he had to work with. Unfortunately I keep thinking about paddle wheels on river boats. They could withstand enormous amounts of torque and strain and were approximately the same diameter, so why couldn't Bessler's wheel take the strain?

      Delete
    3. Anyone of us that have built wooden wheels know they can support more than a few pounds. The only explanation is his wheels simply didn't have that much net OB force. Was this a limitation of his design or a limitation of all possible designs. dg

      Delete
  34. I think it was because he was building it for a long term test. It lacked power also because it was built to turn both directions. Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the bi-directional wheels were supposed to consist of two one-directional wheels, not sure how this would be any less powerful.

      A 6inch diameter axle means 3inch (.25ft) radius. If the wheel could lift 70lbs, that would be 70lbs x .25ft = 17.5 ft-lb of torque. If the weight was near the periphery of the 12ft wheel (6ft radius) that would be approximately 2.9lb of force (2.9lb x 6ft = 17.5 ft-lb). I find it hard to believe that this huge monstrosity of a wheel had an equivalent OB force of just 3 pounds. Lets hope my numbers are incorrect and someone can provide a correction.

      Delete
    2. From what I remember reading on BW, the weight also lifted very slowly so the power potential had to be very low as well. If I thought for a minute that this was all the power that could be produced, I would have never become interested in finding a solution. It certainly would not have been worth the time or effort.

      Delete
  35. Two back to back OB wheels certainly would have less power. If that's what they were. If you were to take one of the back to back wheels and turned it around, I don't believe it would balance at rest. I believe the power would be four fold. ( page 355 ). :) Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jesus!

    At such times as these, here, the Main Stream types must sit back and laugh - laugh - laugh their posteriors off, at such flatulent banter. It is near-mindless.

    I trust and hope that Oystein's (whatever in actual truth it may be, code-worthy or not) will not turn into yet another pan-flash.

    Yes, centennial years DO continue for a year, starting from their beginnings.

    Also, and to close, as of this thread, I must now add Ed's name to those distinguished others - Fletcher's, ovyyus' and jim_mich's - all four of them working very, very hard always to keep us honest. (Mostly, they serve in such a higher capacity over at BWF.)

    James

    ReplyDelete
  37. Congratulations Ed.

    Don't leave rlortie out of this distinguished fellowship. Ed joins a seasoned group of mobilists that have given much of their lives to the discovery of perpetual motion and the rediscovery of the principle driving the Bessler Wheel. I'm sure you will be as successful as they have been these many years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LMAO. Dont waste your time with P, best just to ignore. He's a troll on every site. He has nothing of substance to offer and he never has.

      Delete
    2. 2nd that. He's never been a one of the top guys on BW, just doing his usual kiss-some-ass song and dance to try to gain favors. He will always be on the outside looking in. Numnuts always are. vincer

      Delete
    3. Who's the bigger fool. The so called "distinguished" who have spent year after year rehashing the same stale unproven ideas and have gotten no where, or the newbies.

      There comes a time in any business when it is time to clean house and get rid of the non-producers. It's not personal, it's business. Well that time has come.

      Delete
  38. I used to read many stories on the Bessler web site before comeing to here. The guys there maybe have been working for many many years and helped me some time when I am stuck with problems. I hope to some day have everything they no it will take long time I bet you. I like Jim more. They dont say how much wheels they have but some day I have hope to build to.

    j suon

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am going to finish this ( starting Monday ) ( as I've said before the wheel is built and is acceptable to virtually any " mechanism I choose to build into it ) then I'm getting back to my life . Thanks for all the kind words . Thanks for all the script flipping . You guys are really a lot of covetous old men who think you have rights to the discovery . " Oh come one and come all but come to us first " is your motto . Justsomeone , back-stabber . The thing is if I do build the wheel who on earth can stop me from thinking that I must be a little smarter than all of you ( some great feat , huh ? ) . That's about all I have to say . Mark me : There are no codes .
    CW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      On second thought... being that you accused me of wanting some "free" book when my grievance was actually the loss of a book that I had purchased ... well , you have just shown how petty you are . For this turn I in turn will not call on you if my wheel is successful although you will know about it I am sure .
      CW

      Delete
    2. I am so sick of some of you guys . If you had any details about the " mechanism " you wouldn't be here spouting off vague comments like the above ...
      you'd be building it ! Get a life .
      CW

      Delete
    3. Chris, this is reminiscent of your exit from BW. I defend your right and every else to say as little or as much as you want. Period. You have made some pretty incredible claims in the past, without backing any of it up. You are making similar claims now, again with no details. You really shouldn't complain about the vague comments made by someone else - you know what I mean. Your posts have always been enjoyable to read and you always leave us wanting more (without a doubt). It is unfortunate that one or more posters can't resist the urge to post negative comments, but that is the world we live in, or blog we post in at least. If you leave, please post an update when you have a runner.

      If the design doesn't work out, who knows, if you stick with it for another 30 or 40 years, you can join the experts at that other site. You know, the ones so highly regarded for all their successful runners.

      Delete
  40. It was self starting, so it must have been overbalanced with more weight on one side than the other.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The differance could be,..The wheel that was self starting,was a wheel that was stopped by hand and then secured,while the weights were still locked in their primed position.
    It would then be just a matter of releasing it.
    In the light of what I have found with my wheel,there is a simple way of switching it off.
    In this case one would have to then start it by hand.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think it could self start at any point on the wheel .
    The two way wheel could not self start because there was a mirror set of mechanisms, as the wheel was pushed in one direction there were catches that locked the other set of mechanisms in place, when it goes the opposite direction the catches unlock at one o'clock and the other set of catches locking the other set of mechanisms in place at seven o'clock.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no way he could fit to serts of eight mechanisms in that narrow wheel.
      Believe me, it was one set of weights that could work both ways because an over-balancing wheel can fall both ways.

      Delete
    2. Two sets of four mechanisms could fit in that narrow wheel, easily.

      Delete
    3. I have to respectfully disagree.

      Delete
  43. OK Trevor, than do you have an explanation why the bidirectional wheels were balanced at rest. Thanks. Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bessler said his weights gained force from their swinging/motion. If he found a way to harness CF, the bi wheels would be balanced at rest, and gain force (torque) when turning. It has been reported that a minimum about of rotation was required to sustain rotation. Maybe a certain amount of CF was required to overcome friction and other back forces of the internal mechanism. Just a thought.

      Delete
    2. "It has been reported that a minimum about of rotation was required to sustain rotation".

      Very true. If the wheel was turned very slowly (no official report on how slow), it would not self start. It had to be turned at a certain rotational speed before the internal mechanism kicked in (again no official report on how fast). Since motion was required to get the wheel moving, one could an inertia exchange like an ice skater turning faster when bringing in her arms, or centrifugal force was the driver behind the wheel.

      Delete
    3. Yes I can!..Bessler said that at rest all the weights were hanging from there pivot points.
      This would make the wheel balanced.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 17 March 2013 13:24
      " OK Trevor, than do you have an explanation why the bidirectional wheels were balanced at rest. Thanks. Justsomeone "
      I do . It's because the power of the wheel depended on the " movement " of the weights , also their own power and the sustenance of the motion . In order for the wheel to turn both ways the design had to be altered slightly which changes the OB at rest . Of course I have no idea how exactly the one directional wheel differed from the others but it fits with my theory and design . My design is bi-directional and it's not necessarily what you would call OB .
      CW

      Delete
  44. Chris, Back stabber? What I say about you, I say in an open forum. Please read your old posts on bw.com. Countless posts demanding that everyone pat you on the back, congratulate you or bow down to your greatness. You do this time and time again and always the same outcome, non working wheel. ( and probably a bad design from the start) This is what most people are sick and tired of. What is wrong with just saying " my last idea failed but I have something else I am going to try. " You are attempting something that is impossible. Don't be so confident in every idea that pops into your head. I tried to talk you into building a 4 ft. Wheel instead of the 12 ftr. Start small. Good luck. Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris,

      I have to agree with justsomeone. Read his post carefully and objectively and you will see it is not derogatory, but constructive criticism.

      Delete
    2. I understand , completely that I am expected to repeat the past over and over and until I have a runner that is the way it will be . Perhaps I am the easiest to fool ( myself ) . For this I apologize . The fact is I get manic and depressed ... I am simply resisting the swing from one to the other . But unlike others my theories about the wheel are sound and based on subtleties that Bessler included in his description of the device although they are not so concrete they will eventually ( and may have already ) lead me to the mechanism . I appreciate the empathy btw .
      CW

      Delete
    3. Good explanation Chris, that's all anyone wants. I too suffer from manic depression from time to time. I feel for you. Keep at it and don't let the trolls get you so worked up. They don't speak for everyone. zoelra

      Delete
    4. Message from my daughter :
      She says that all of you here and at OU and BW can just stop whatever you are doing because
      her Dad got it .
      CW and J

      Delete
    5. Well I guess that settles it! :) justsomeone

      Delete
    6. Chris, lets hope you make her proud and give her an excellent life.

      Delete
    7. Thanks I am trying .
      Here's a little snippet from Pulp Fiction that kinda explains my demeanor:
      I'm givin' you that money so I don't have to kill your ass. You read the Bible, Ringo? Well, there's this passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." I been saying that shit for years. And if you heard it, that meant your ass. I never gave much thought to what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this morning made me think twice. See, now I'm thinking, maybe it means you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man, and Mr. 9 millimeter here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is, you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.
      CW

      Delete
    8. Proverbs. 16:5

      Delete
    9. How does he feel about the ashamed then ? If I can acheive this it will be with God's help just as Bessler claimed so wouldn't that be a conflict of interest for God to both detest me and help me out at the same time . James 4:12 .
      CW

      Delete
  45. Not one person can show a continuously OB wheel. It is not mechanically possible. To prove my point, show me one example. You can't. This is of course exclusive of a prime mover that can produce a standalone predictable force that can be used as needed to raise the weights to produce the OB effect. Absent this type of PM and you will have no runner. Period. Find the PM and any number of working wheels is possible. I suspect the anointed ones will have something to say about this, and I say good. Show us your working wheel and prove my point incorrect. dtd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I do,..Watch this space in a day or two!

      Delete
    2. Well then I look forward to seeing your prime mover as this is the prime ingredient in any working wheel.

      Delete
    3. You're on friend,or I will apologise.
      I will not be able to show it to you but I can declare that the wheel is turning.
      It will appear on u-tube when it is protected.

      Delete
    4. Fantastic news Trevor. Post a link when there. zoelra

      Delete
    5. Dear Trevor
      How much would you sell instructions on how to build it for ?
      Sincerely M.F.

      Delete
    6. That is a tall order.
      I will first have to go through the patent prosess or seek some form of protection.

      Delete
  46. Trevor said "It will appear on u-tube when it is protected."

    LOL. It doesn't need 'protecting' once it's on Youtube (what the hell is "u-tube"? Can't you spell "You"?) because nobody will be able to deny that YOU created it. Presumably YOU will be on the video, in front of the working wheel, explaining how YOU built it. It will then be on every news channel on the planet the next day, therefore you don't need to 'protect' it, because nobody will be able to claim they invented it first.

    Don't bother, Trevor, you haven't got a solution, you won't put anything up on Youtube, and like all the others here, you are wasting everybody's time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor will cover vital areas so you can't see the secret components.

      Delete
    2. There is one person who for all practical purposes evidently aceived a PM invention/device . Let it never be said that Johann Bessler , by publishing several books and sending out word in all directions within his means , considering his era , ever wasted anyone's time by doing so .
      CW

      Delete
    3. Why are you so negative?..If you don't want me to show that my wheel is turning then I won't.

      Delete
    4. LOL. Where did I say that "I don't want you to show that your wheel is turning"?

      You haven't got a solution, you never have had.

      Delete
  47. If everyone is wasting your time, why are you here? Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Anonymous 17 March 2013 13:07

    LMAO. Dont waste your time with P, best just to ignore. He's a troll on every site. He has nothing of substance to offer and he never has."

    and in alliance

    "Anonymous 17 March 2013 15:06

    2nd that. He's never been a one of the top guys on BW, just doing his usual kiss-some-ass song and dance to try to gain favors. He will always be on the outside looking in. Numnuts always are. vincer"

    Interesting assertions. Are they ones true?

    (To the jury, I'll leave the verdict.)

    "ANONYMOUS" = ZERO CREDIBILITY

    ZERO!

    John, really, who could possibly keep up with the anonymous terrors, as have broken out here?

    Cowards-all, is this pestilent, generally illiterate mouthy scum, sitting at their keyboards getting off on pulling chains!

    How much more sick could these games get, that they run?

    Although I don't respond directly (never have - never will) to unsigned, anonymous low-lifes, yes I agree; rlortie (Ralph) should also be added to that distinguished group of honesty/accuracy checkers. While going about the work, of the group, he is the most gentlemanly.

    I have a suggestion, John.

    Why not simply declare up-front in the header, that every single post that appears as an "Anonymous", so-called signed or not, will be DELETED by yourself.

    Yes, just that simple.

    Then, honest and open individuals that desire to post, will at least have to assume a handle, according to "Name/URL" or any of the other options in "Comment as: Select profile".

    The mere presence of anonymous' constitutes a tyranny of a sort. It is most unsettling to all, I believe, to hear and have to respond-to, a whisperer hiding behind a curtain!

    It is not right.

    Just a respectful, well intended suggestion.

    James







    ReplyDelete
  49. Sorry guys,..My wheel does not work!..I will have to check that I have got everything right before I shelve it.
    I'm beginning to think that this negative troll is actually Bessler's ghost!He does not seem to want us to find the solution.
    We will have to bannish him to the pit with all the other demons.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Even though this wheel would only turn about 20 turns,I still think it is the most promising configuration yet.The only thing that worried me was that there were no hammer sounds like Bessler's wheel.
    Every thing else was jut like the description in the poem.

    ReplyDelete
  51. James, I appreciate your point and I have long deliberated on the best course of action regarding the more unpleasant comments. I've tried the alternatives and they are not suitable, so your suggestion seems the only one left. The problem I have with that is that it smacks of censorship and I don't even want to get into that - its a minefield.

    At present I delete the spam comments as and when I see them; I delete foul language if it appears and I sometimes delete what I regard as inappropriate comment. I can't delete anyone's comment just because they prefer to remain anonymous, because they often have useful or interesting things to say and the blog would be less without them.

    I know it's frustrating to see bad-tempered comments and if only people thought about how they would respond if they were face to face with others, they might moderate their language more.

    I will keep the problem in mind and do some research to see if there is anything else I can do but I have already gone the route and I think it is as good as it's going to get.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  52. Trevor...Good, you are making some progress...20 rounds is not really bad...but the banging sound is important...this is due to the landing of the weights by swinging... it is possible that your design does not confirms to Bessler's...and, that explains why it is not able to continue...keep trying without losing heart...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Suresh,..At last some encouragment.
      Of course I will never give up,I have not waste 6 years for nothing.

      Delete
    2. And you have not waste the last 66 years learning about spelling either, right?

      Delete
  53. That's it? Thats the 'review' that was going to restore relevancy to this blog? Ha,ha, ha. Just as I suspected it tells us nothing just that Oystein thinks he's found a special 'language' Bessler used in MT to describe the wheel's mechnanism which he will fully reveal 'someday'. It's starting to look to me like Oystein is yet another victim of the 'Ignorami' and like Collins won't reveal anything until some vague 'tomorrow' after they have running wheels. No wonder he sent the videos to Collins for review! Well I won't be holding my breath waiting for that day to arrive. Only tg had the balls to ignore the troll attacks and 'Ignorami' stooge insults and openly tell how Bessler's wheels worked and to begin to provide correct interpretations of the clues hidden in the dt portraits that described the wheels inner mechanism and operation (I urge all newcomers to this blog to read all of his comments made between Aug 30 2011 and Jan 8 2013). Once he did that his days were numbered around here and he became a prime target for the 'Ignorami'. They are still active here and in control and it won't be long before they target yours truly for exposing them. Mark my words!

    mike

    ReplyDelete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...