Monday, 18 March 2013

Where are those scientists who do go out on a limb to present radical ideas, despite peer pressure.

I have often remarked on the difficulty we face in convincing scientists that Bessler's wheel was genuine.  So it's quite surprising to occasionally discover some highly educated scientist with an excellent reputation who has gone out on a limb to profess his or her personal conviction about some subject or other, which, with any other person, we might be tempted to dismiss as arrant nonsense. Despite their seemingly bizarre opinions they are able to publish books expounding their off-the-wall theories.  I, on the other hand, with no celebrity status found it impossible to convince any publishers that my book was worthy of publication, not because it lacked journalistic skills, but because the subject was 'unsuitable', 'unproven', 'of doubtful interest' , 'it's been covered numerous times before' or 'everyone knows it's impossible' - and finally and unarguably, 'you are an unknown author" - Catch-22!

On the other hand sometimes we see that otherwise knowledgeable people have made public statements about the impossibility of something which have turned out to be possible after all - one thinks of the Lord Kelvin who said in 1895, "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" and there are many, many more.  But what of those who publish equally forthright material which many of us might be tempted to dismiss as rubbish but which turn out to be correct?

My own publications have received a good share of scepticim - and I have yet to be vindicated.  But there are some scientists commonly referred to as 'mavericks', because they take a view about something that does not fit in with current theory.  Although I convinced professor Hal Puthoff, sometimes described as a maverick, that Bessler was genuine, he is not prepared to go public with his support until it can be shown how such a device can work within the current laws of physics.  I don't blame him - he suffered plenty of scorn and derision over his 'remote viewing' experiments back in the 1970's.

I suppose there must be other scientists out there, of a 'maverick tendency', who might become equally convinced of Bessler's legitimacy and succumb to the temptation to publicly support research into this field - but none so far.  This particular 'limb' is a stretch too far, even for those who are said to have completely open minds.  But, oddly enough, the general population - those who are not 'professional' scientists - are far more willing to engage in serious conversation about Bessler's wheel. - and don't forget, some of the most important discoveries have been made by amateur inventors.

I have given up hoping to persuade anyone with the 'proper credentials' to support us and go public; its all down to us guys.  Good luck.

“The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass--which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught - but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and in the monopoly of learning.  Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse.  The academic backwoodsmen have been the curse of genius from Aristarchus to Darwin and Freud; they stretch, a solid and hostile phalanx of pedantic mediocrities, across the centuries.” (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers [New York, 1959], p. 427.)  [my underlining]

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

52 comments:

  1. Too true John,..I know the feeling.
    I've come to the conclusion that the only way to sell an idea is to have it physically in your hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, no one will buy an unrealized idea.

      Delete
    2. Trevor, I just read your wheel is not a runner. Sorry to hear that. Well I believe the only way anyone will achieve PM is to have what I call an "active prime mover". By this I mean a mechanism (prime mover) that produces force/power in itself. The PM would then apply that force to shifting weights in a larger OB wheel. More details to follow.

      Delete
    3. Not to worry John ,..I am down but certainly not out!

      Delete
  2. The trouble doesn't ends there...as Bessler found it difficult to sell even with a runner in hand...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think there were other reasons his wheel did not sell.

    Bessler's wheel was competing with powered wheels and cheap labor and energy supplies. Couple that with a relative low power output and immobility and I don't think there was anyway he his wheel could compete. I doubt clean and free energy even played a part in the decision.

    No doubt a running Bessler wheel today will get a better reception.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John, quick question. What do you think a book deal would be worth for whoever solves the Bessler mystery? Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jso, it all depends onm your writing ability - or you could get a ghost writer to do it. It's got to be worth a lot of money and the spin-offs from TV interviews and documentaries. I couldn't put a figure on it, but a $million seems easily obtainable.

      JC

      Delete
  5. Those generation of scientists with an open mind have gone or they are too old and the younger generations have been much more thoroughly brainwashed by the Orwellian education system .

    ReplyDelete
  6. The limb has been sufficiently cracked by all the nutters that keep coming along and insisting publicly that they have found the solution, and those scientists will continue staying away in such an environment.

    The perceived impossibility keeps solidifying each time this happens, like I've been saying, and it's apparently a waste of breath to try and explain it to these people.

    So there you have it. :-(

    -Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be fare, don't leave out the decoders.

      Delete
    2. His fare was fair, ferret!

      Delete
  7. You are out of line Sir,..This wheel is going to come to the fore and no critic is going to squash it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're missing the point, Trevor... on so many levels.

      John, maybe you could do a follow up post about this? I believe you know what I'm talking about, and maybe people will listen to you explain it?

      -Ed

      Delete
    2. What point?..why don't you explain yourself instead of talking in code.

      It's important to post our failures as well as our progress,so that people can see there is at least something happening.

      Delete
    3. After 30 years of attempts, the BW boys just don't seem to have what it takes. The wannabes there are biting at the bit to take over, but their ideas are so lame that it will be a bloody miracle if one of them succeeds. I guess its all up to CW for now.

      Delete
    4. What's the point? Where am I? Who took my false teeth?

      Delete
    5. LOL

      Trevor, if you think I'm speaking in code, then you must be a codebreaker, otherwise how can you determine if I'm out of line?

      I didn't say your name anywhere in my original comment, so someone must have a guilty conscience, huh?

      -Ed

      Delete
  8. The scientists who would go out on the PM limb died a long time ago.
    The ones who'd go out on a gravity wheel limb died before that. Da Vinci should have put that to rest. But the tragic legend of bessler breathes new life into some minds.
    Pretending to know how to build a machine that transforms energy out of nothing doesn't help the cause you have. Find the energy, find the answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Doug is saying gravity wheels are not possible and the Bessler wheel mystery will only be solved when the true energy source behind the wheel is found, thus implying something other than gravity. dg

      Delete
  9. There is no need to find another energy source. Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's not just a perceived impossibility. It's a proven impossibility. There is no doubt in scientists' minds. If you all stop pretending you know how to build a gravity wheel, bessler might get more serious attention. Until then, you're spitting into the wind.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry Doug but you're wrong. Bessler proved it was possible. I also believe all he utilized was gravity, cf, cp, momentum ect. ect. How can you say it is proven impossible? Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a huge difference between gravity and CF as potential driving sources.

      Delete
    2. I would also endorse Justsomeone's question. I used to agree with Doug and others here, insofar as I also could not see how to use gravity to drive a wheel, although I did try to avoid the illogical and hubristic view of "I can't see how to do it; therefore it must be impossible."

      Delete
  12. After years of research and building, I have to come to the same conclusion as Doug. However, I would say it a bit differently. I would say OB gravity wheels are not the answer in and of themselves. Given the correct prime mover (as alluded to in the March 2013 15:10 post above), it would be possible to lift the weights in such a wheel allowing for continuous OB operation. The prime mover is the key.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Whatever bessler built, it wasn't a gravity wheel. His 'prime mover' wasn't cf,cp,momentum. It was a form of energy. The weights were overbalanced by energy transformation, exclusive of conservative force fields. Most likely hidden in the ____.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given the weak energy output of the wheel, I would have to agree that something just doesn't add up.

      Delete
    2. We assume -based on rather inaccurate observations AND other assumptions- that the output was weak. With modern materials and techniques it would surprise me if things can't be improved. Not to mention scaled up.

      Delete
  14. No there wasn't an energy source hidden in the axle. :) I respectfully disagree with you. Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon (DTD:18th Mar, 15:10hrs & 23:51) could be very much right about the active prime mover (a Mechanism) that produces its own force/energy being the key for OB operation...it also could be another way of explaining that continuous motion can still be achieved by a different approach and this perhaps was what Bessler must have hit upon...
    What a suggestion by this anon !!! ...this could be the answer...It would really be quite worth if we could just focus on this and try to understand what he is trying to imply...otherwise, this valuable input may simply vanish into the mist forever...I would say what a clue this is...never before has such a hint been provided in this blog...you could be damn right anon...sorry, I am not able to directly mention your real name...I understand your point but simply can't make out why you prefer to remain as an anon...

    Andre Sir...I am not sure if you are online now...I had mentioned in the past that sometimes very valuable clues do appear occasionally on this blog but just being ignored by us...here it is again...
    Talking of a mechanism producing its own force or energy may appear to be bit far fetched...could this be indicating to the usage of inertia?...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could two people simultaneously discover the solution to Bessler's wheel?
      March 2013 05:12

      2 times "what" is 6?
      2 bangs plus six bangs is how many bangs?

      Delete
    2. 2 times "what" is 6? ...... Ummm, maybe 3???

      2 bangs plus six bangs is how many bangs? ...... Ummmm, yes sir, yes sir, 8 bangs full???

      Delete
    3. Oh yes, Suresh, every now and then there are some very interesting nuggets of "gold" here. By various authors, actually. I do think, like you do, that those that are researching oscillation and resonance -doing the opposite of what "normal" engineers would do- are on to something.

      Delete
  16. There was a time about twenty years ago when prominent professional engineers in the academic world would indeed publicly endorse free energy breakthroughs — in Japan at least.

    I've mentioned before the "Dream Energy" program broadcast on 20 October 1993 by the Fuji Television network, concerning the Kawai motor, US Patent 5,436,518. It's too long for a full transcript here, but maybe the first part of it (plus one comment from later on) will give the general idea of it:—

    "Newscaster Woman’s Voice:
    It’s been said that it’s impossible to gain usable energy from permanent magnets.

    Newscaster Man’s Voice:
    But it’s been discovered that it’s indeed possible to extract energy from permanent magnets; and our staff has pursued this matter to reveal to you the secrets of this new technology.

    Script on Screen:
    [Professor at Waseda University, Engineering Department (Physics) Prof. Yoshihiko Otsuki]

    Otsuki:
    This is something that can turn the whole 21st century around — in terms of new energy. When I visited and saw the experiments in action my hands literally trembled from excitement.

    Script on Screen:
    [(Japan Science Research Laboratory) = Nihon Riken. Mr. Teruhiko Kawai]

    Narrator Woman’s Voice:
    What had surprised Prof. Otsuki was the fact that there was a high energy ratio achieved; that there was, in fact, a ratio of over 100%. [The phrase used is “more output than input.”]

    Script on Screen:
    [Meiji University Scientific Engineering Department (Engineer) Prof. Masao Mukaidono]

    Mukaidono:
    What we found were some very interesting facts.

    Narrator Woman’s Voice:
    Permanent magnets have the nature to repel and attract. Prof. Kawai has succeeded in making permanent magnets produce mechanical energy. To convert magnetic energy to mechanical energy.

    Script on Screen:
    [Now Revealed: Dream Energy]

    ....

    Narrator Woman's Voice:
    What we had here was an output exceeding 100%. Seeing the results, the professors were amazed.
    ...."

    The program showed well-constructed prototype motors being properly brake-tested, as well as interviews with the professors, the inventor, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are very well documented, Arktos. My hat off.

      Delete
  17. Okay,..So where is it?..Why has it not been exploited?..What are we waiting for?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor, Assuming you're referring to my post above about the Kawai motor, all I can say is that those are good questions, and I honestly don't know the answers.

      Delete
    2. Trervor Dauncey19 March 2013 at 06:28

      Ok Arktos,..thanks.

      Delete
    3. Arktos, I couldn't agree more. I'm quite familiar with that motor concept. But what happened to it, I don't know. Some would insist that it was "suppressed" but I find that very hard to believe in this day and age.

      Delete
    4. Andre, Yes it's easy to speculate about suppression — Tom Bearden does, re the Kawai motor, at http://www.cheniere.org/misc/kawai.htm.

      Personally, I've never seen any "smoking gun" that would *prove* suppression, but perhaps that's just because the suppressors are good at their job! :)

      Delete
    5. I agree, Arktos. Or maybe it's the MIB... do I hear choppers? :-)

      Delete
  18. The secret may be in coming up with a configuration that smartly utilizes the advantages of lever principle and a perfect blend of energy extracted from Gravity, CP force, CF force, Inertia, etc.,

    ReplyDelete
  19. Doug & Co,..The energy comes from gravity...John is right because he believes what Bessler said.
    So here's what happens;..The energy comes from an oscillating mass that is triggered by the switching of gravity...You might ask ,..how do you switch gravity?..That is done by simply turning the wheel 180 degrees,..gravity reversal.
    This will result in an action that is so vigorous the wheel could explode.
    It's the controlling of this action that can be used to lift the working weights to over-balance the wheel.
    The amazing thing is,..this energy is free as it has no effect on the torque of the wheel.
    It is an action and reaction entirely within the confines of the between the hub and the perimeter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Trevor
      Well put! The theory that I am exploring for this is all about self-induced vibrations and resonances. I am finding information on this in engineering text books, where the goal is opposite to ours: its all about how to prevent such things happening in mechanical machines. Look at "force transmissibility function" and you will see that there can be a "jump" at the natural frequency (which could be very destructive), but there is also a continuous linear increase to be had at a relatively high damping rate (0.7), which of course means that you could extract force and it would still keep on linearly increasing.

      @Doug
      You have been misguided in believing that anything at all can be proven in Physics. You can prove stuff in Maths, because you exactly define all conditions and can make logically sound deductions. As long as you have a good mathematical model for your Physics, you can use Maths to make predictions. However, once your model is wrong, the Maths are useless. This is what we are looking into here: is the current model maybe off the mark in certain circumstances? Flight can be proven to be impossible as long as you are operating along the rules of aerostatics. Once flight was shown to be possible, aerodynamics were formulated.

      Delete
    2. VERY well put Mimi, and Trevor as well. Suresh is also right in the sense that resonances (Trevor and the Anon above said something along the lines of a self-induced resonance (or movement) as a prime mover). I agree with that - the prime mover is the key. Mimi, what you describe in the first part of your post (to Trevor) is, IMHO, absolutely true: Bessler used the opposite of what mechanical engineers are taught: he sought (and found) self-induced vibrations and oscillations. That is exactly what *every* mechanical engineer tries to prevent at all cost (since it can be so destructive). So Bessler, indeed, found it where everyone else looked (and dismissed it).

      Oscillation is the key to a viable prime mover.

      Delete
    3. Yes I agree Andre and Mimi, that oscillation is the key to a viable prime mover - parametric oscillation.

      JC

      Delete
    4. @Doug: I had a interesting discussion with a programmer who works for a extremely well-funded climate research panel (which shall remain anonymous) that everybody knows and pays (dearly) for. Turns out their beloved climatological computer models are, basically, useless. To keep a long story short: based on their models (solidly based on the laws of Physics) they used to predict the most awful outcomes. Turns out their models were incomplete. And thus the predictions of these carefully crafted models were... well, useless. Hogwash.

      After more than a decade of model-worshiping in climatology, they are basically now back to square one: namely the recognition that the Sun, or star, is the main driver of the climate on this planet and the whole solar system.

      Duh.

      Models? Laws? They are proven to be incorrect all the time, sometimes by science itself - as that is science too, thank God. That's why Schopenhauer, Einstein, and many, many others insisted (and still do) that science sometimes progresses funeral by funeral. As the opponents of certain ideas and theories die out, the new ideas (sometimes) get a chance.

      Things like the Besslerwheel may seem impossible if one adheres to our current understanding (!) of the current (!) physical models. But I am a) not sure the models are complete and b) not sure the laws need to be broken to prove the model lacking.

      Delete
  20. Very rude of me, John: I never answered your primary question in the post - where are the scientists? Well, let me assure you they are there. Perhaps even in far greater numbers than many believe. But...behind closed doors.

    Don't forget that mavericks are not only slaughtered on fora. The academic world is a complete snake-pit. And thus it stays behind closed doors.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oscillation is one thing, vibration is another, resonance is yet another thing. But they all have one thing in common; they are all movement resulting from energy transformation. Climate models try to predict energy transformation, and I can assure you Andre, and your programmer friend, that the models aren't hogwash. If anything is hogwash, it's statements like yours. Jeez.
    Arktos: Magnets don't have energy, only force. That's why the Kawai "motor" was "suppressed".
    Mimi: Flight is energy transformation. Does anything that is capable of flight achieve it without a source of energy? No. If I throw a Buzz Lightyear doll off the deck, does he fly? No, he falls with style.
    Look around, people. Do you see any movement in nature (or manmade) that happens without energy transformation? No. It's not a "belief" that scientists have constructed to brainwash non-scientists. That's laughable. And it doesn't help your cause to use paranoid arguments like that, it just makes you look foolish, disrespectful, and trivializes the conversation.

    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...