Thursday, 11 April 2013

Look for a different principle for the solution to Bessler's wheel


After a liftetime's experience in Besslerland, one thing I have learned is this; there are hard and fast rules in physics and they cannot be bent or deformed to accomodate personal convictions about how Bessler's wheel worked and even though you may come up with numerous ingenious designs for gravity-eneabled wheels, they all have to be compatible with the laws of physics.  That is why I do, from time to time, suggest such things as the parametric oscillation (PO) as holding the key to the solution.

The reason why I do this is because I want to get people thinking about how it might be achieved without going the 'over-balancing route'. This particular blog is not so much about parametric oscillation (PO) but more about the need to find a way to use gravity to drive round a wheel, that is compatible with the laws of physics, but, most importantly, leaves behing for the lessons of history, the simple over-balancing wheel.

PO is simply, swinging on a swing and maintaining the motion by altering the position of the body relative to the fulcrum or crossbar on which the swing hangs.  Oscillation by itself will simply slow down until it comes to a stop, so you need a way to generate energy to maintain the swinging. Traditionally people have sought to overbalance the wheel by moving weights inwards and outwards from the centre of rotation, but it must surely be obvious by now that, as the scientists confirm, such a method will not work.  After hundreds of years without a single runner, except for Bessler's, no show means no go, pardon the aphorism.  

Did Bessler use PO?  In my opinion,yes.  He said that simply overbalancing a wheel was a waste of time and piling more weights on simply confirmed that it would not work.  But PO doesn't simply mean overbalancing although it does form a part of the action.  First you have to generate the initial energy which is induced by allowing a weight to fall, and it isn't necessary to have it fall into a position which would overbalnce the wheel.  It's job is to move another weight of identical mass and size, into a position which will then lead to a small angle of rotation in the wheel. 

Compare this action to that of the person on a swing.  To initiate movement the swinger leans backwards to start a small angle of rotation, and then forwards to repeat the action in the opposite direction.  With the right timing, he or she, can add the force generated in the first action to the second one, thus increasing the distance rotated back and forth.  The rider's action produces rotation just as the first weight does when it falls and moves the second weight.

The rider flexes his arms or pulls on them to move his body into an overbalancing position and that starts rotation so the movement of the arms is similar to the fall of the first weight.  Separate from the arms is the body which is equivalent to the second weight.  In the case of the sitting swinger, when he leans back, his weight is moved behind the fulcrum, thus moving the swing seat forward; and then he leans forward to bring his body weight in front of the fulcrum thus pushing it rearwards again.  

A more efficient method for our purposes is for the swinger to stand on the seat.  In this case he moves his body weight closer to the fulcrum and further from it dependant on whether he is swinging forwards or backwards. Of course he still needs to start the movement by altering his body position to the front or rear of the fulcrum, then he can adopt the rise and fall method This is more efficient use of the rider's energy.  In Estonia, as I have mentioned several times over the years, they have a national sport called in Estonian 'Kiiking'. In this case the swing has rigid ropes made of steel and the rider is fixed by his feet to the swing seat and this permits him to swing back and forth with increasing momentum until he completes a full turn and several afterwards.  In competitions the Estonians lengthen the steel ropes which makes it much more difficult to generate a full turn.

It is this technique that I am sure we can turn to our advantage and I believe is what Bessler incorporated within his wheels.

However if you do ot subscribe to this theory then you must find an alternative that does not depend entirley on simple overbalancing and as far as I know the only other potential techniques currently being studied either avail themselves of the centrifugal/centripetal force generated in turning the wheel, or David Cowlishall's Gyroscopic Inertial Thrust (GIT!).

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

85 comments:

  1. John, as a long time-ago apprentice, I of course got the job of fetching conduit from the stores.
    Just for a laugh, I would walk in a rhythmic manner, to make the conduit bounce up and down, almost uncontrollably.
    Recently I've been thinking of just two weighted spring arms to work a slotted cam action,the downward "wobble" to partly move the wheel, and the following falling of the weights to turn the wheel to find equilibrium, this action also causing the wobble to continue.
    Any merit in this idea?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you sure he said an overbalance wheel is a waste of time?

    " searching for their point of rest and never being able to find it. "

    Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one
      further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can
      arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the
      centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few
      years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the
      truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn
      through bitter experience." APOLOGIA POETICA XLIII

      JC

      Delete
    2. I still believe in the simple overbalanced design and I claim to have good reasons to do so. Yes, hundreds of years and no single runner, but, that is, I believe, most (or all) people try always the same principle to achieve OB. Look at all the classical wheel designs, they seem to be different but finally they're almost all the same - the same mistake. No, you cannot lift a weight by another weight and have finally the original height for both, that's a waste of time if you try this. The only solution I can see is, don't let the weights lose their height!

      -> "Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can
      arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the
      centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve."

      Because many doesn't know what they have to consider when doing this. If you arrange weights in a way that their circular path is off-center AND they've no contact to anything other than the wheel's circumference itself, then the wheel WILL surely revolve.

      Delete
    3. To me the " problem " with overbalanced designs is that they require the weight to be lifted more or less straight up TWICE , once at 6 o'clock and again at 12 o'clock . And if you could manage to do that with some form of mechanical energy device/force/ source/salvage why would you not apply this force to the circumference of the wheel where it would be of use ?
      CW

      Delete
    4. CW, not necessarily, check my posting, 15 April, 23:20.

      Delete
  3. John, it's plain as day..... " a little "

    Bessler's wheel was an overbalance wheel!

    FACT!

    Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too can vouch for the OB effect…S.O.P.M has rightly put it…, “Because many doesn't know what they have to consider when doing this.”...
      It is very much important that we understand that Bessler didn’t want anyone to find out the truth easily…so, we shouldn't take everything he has written at face value…the extract from " APOLOGIA POETICA XLIII” that says about him learning through bitter experience just means that placing weights a little more distant from the center than the others ALONE will not make the wheel revolve…
      The arrangement for the OB effect to happen has to be proper…the secret lies in the design of the lever and weight as well as doing some modification in the wheel structure accordingly…the weights will have to seek their punctum quietus endlessly…

      Delete
    2. Quote : " Anonymous12 April 2013 01:34
      John, it's plain as day..... " a little "

      Bessler's wheel was an overbalance wheel!

      FACT!

      Justsomeone "

      Ok now I know you're a smart one . I should have listened to you all along ! I must see your revolving overbalanced Bessler wheel ! I demand to know where you are hiding it !
      CW

      Delete
  4. John .
    Don't sweat it . You are right ! It wasn't a simple overbalanced design . It was the Premium Mobile Per Se or " Prime Mover in and of Itself . " I have an animation of it here on my computer screen !
    CW

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pg. 82
    Of the is called a great artist
    Who can throw up easily a difficult thing
    And if one pound falls a quarter,
    Four pounds of high fast four quarters. x
    Whoever made ​​this can speculate,
    Soon the race will perpetuate;
    But those who do not know this,
    Because of all the hard work is in vain;
    You do, think, sense, dense
    DC already on so much weight;
    His thing which is rather difficult,
    And provided much longer, as it is empty;
    Yes, there riseth such his things
    As if equal no matter how many sparrows
    Are horribly biting around and
    around a silent mill wheel;
    As I only recently perceived,
    When I came to such a dispute
    CW

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems I have been treading the same path as John. At first I only looked at how to create a continuous imbalance (and yes: levers will help you do that, I have physically built such wheels, and they will turn enough to even start the next compartment moving - but not good enough to keep on going). During simulation tests I realised that a rhythm or pulse is needed to keep going, since then I have been researching parametric oscillation. It is an interesting approach inasmuch as it is not really necessary to get the rising weight to follow a path close to the axle. However, you would be mistaken, if you thought it were not an overbalanced wheel: the weight must go over the top on a short radius, so that the bottom is heavy and will swing. If you look at the theory, the pendulum is one ideal form of a physical pendulum. A wheel with inequal weight distribution is also a physical pendulum. While the weight-on-a-stick or the person-on-a-swing must work hard to get over the top, a wheel with moveable parts has an easier job due to its symmetry: for a 3-symmetry as in the Apologia wheel, a 120 degrees swing will allow the next weight to move and take over the swinging. However, I have not yet cracked the ideal ratio to achieve this continuous pumping (the weights have no will of their own, only gravity, unlike the man on the swing). I have found some good pointers in engineering handbooks, I highly recommend the follwing link to a useful PDF, which you can download and save:
    http://148.208.165.143/libros/Libros%20y%20Manuales%20de%20Ingenieria/Engineering%20Books/Harris__Shock_And_Vibration_Handbook/HARRIS~1.-HA/70811_05.pdf
    There is a description of "pulsating torque" where the moveable mass adds 0.5 times the natural frequency at every turn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here. I couldn't agree more - I think both John and you are thinking along the right lines. The links are very interesting indeed - thanks!

      Delete
  7. A hint on building a wheel by improving on the kiiking principle with a counter-weight:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4Y5h4je4dY

    ReplyDelete
  8. John's point about the different methods of using a swing reminded me of the following:—

    "It is amusing to note that Japanese children learn to use playground swings by parametric resonance: they stand up as the swing approaches its equilibrium position, at the bottom of its arc, and crouch as it reaches the top of its arc. This makes the moment of inertia of the swing-child system oscillate with twice the frequency of the swinging and causes a faster growth of the swinging than the forced resonance method favored by Western children."

    The source is "Self-Oscillation" by Alejandro Jenkins, see http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6640. It's a fairly math-heavy paper, but interesting. It even has a few sentences briefly summarising Bessler's wheel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Arktos! Very interesting paper.

      Delete

  9. "It is amusing to note that Japanese children learn to use playground swings by parametric resonance: they stand up as the swing approaches its equilibrium position, at the bottom of its arc, and crouch as it reaches the top of its arc. This makes the moment of inertia of the swing-child system oscillate with twice the frequency of the swinging and causes a faster growth of the swinging than the forced resonance method favored by Western children."

    The source is "Self-Oscillation" by Alejandro Jenkins, see http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6640. It's a fairly math-heavy paper, but interesting. It even has a few sentences briefly summarising Bessler's wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Arktos
    Thank you so much for that brilliant link, looking forward to reading the doc during the weekend. The indroction starts promisingly:
    "The main purpose of this article is to bring self-oscillation to
    the attention of theoretical physicists, to whom it is not usually taught in any systematic way. We shall, therefore, em-phasize not only its practical importance, including its applications in mechanical engineering, acoustics, electronics,
    and biomechanics (perhaps even in nance and macroeconomics) but also why it is conceptually fascinating."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mimi, you're welcome.

      (I don't know who re-posted most of my comment at 10:26, it wasn't me).

      Delete
  11. Mimi, I agree that OB does have role to play in parametric oscillation, but I was trying to get people not to star with a blank piece of paper and try to get OB without looking for a way to get to that point, eg parametric oscillation for example.

    From my post above:-

    "But PO doesn't simply mean overbalancing although it does form a part of the action."

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  12. ... SURESH ... SURESH ... SURESH ... SURESH ...

    Did you see the Anonymous 12 April 2013 06:58 post above (from CW). Let me repeat.

    CW SAID:
    "To me the " problem " with overbalanced designs is that they require the weight to be lifted more or less straight up TWICE , once at 6 o'clock and again at 12 o'clock . And if you could manage to do that with some form of mechanical energy device/force/ source/salvage why would you not apply this force to the circumference of the wheel where it would be of use ?"

    Suresh, does this sound familiar? DESIGN#1 versus DESIGN#2. If CW and I are thinking along the sames lines, then he is saying what I said, why use the 'force' to lift the weights in an OB wheel, when you can get more power by applying that 'force' to the circumference. Ok this is really crazy. I would not have thought in a million years (or at least 300) that anyone else would have found the same solution. Looks like I need to describe the design in code (similar to JC's code at the bottom of each topic) and start posting with my real blog name. I didn't want to do this too early in case I was wrong, but as I said, I have already proven the 'force' or as I call it, the active prime mover. Wow, I'm still in shock.

    ->

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeh...I remember...You had mentioned the same thing...

      Delete
    2. No one is stealing your design here ... rather pointing out the " problem " with OB in general . I am 100% sure that my ideas and yours are quite different , so relax accordingly .
      CW

      Delete
    3. CW you have it wrong. I was saying based on your statement that maybe both of us have the same or similar design, and the thought of us both finding the same solution around the same time would be amazing. What you don't think there can be two great minds out there?

      I will share this with you. I found an mechanism I refer to as an active prime mover. When working it provides force in one direction. You can use that force to lift weights in an OB style wheel (but why as you say) or you can use it (and more) on the outside of a wheel to power it. This scenario provides the greatest use of the force. If this is something like you found, then I would say we are thinking along similar lines. If not, well then there can still be two great minds, just looking in two different directions :)

      ->

      Delete
  13. John, I am sorry to say that I don`t think that there is anything special to gain by any swinging, centrifugal/centripetal force, or any motion gained by 1 weight or a pair of weights in general. I also believe I have experimented and calculated so many hundreds of variation on computer and paper doing those kind of movements, without finding 1 single "free/extra joule" at the end. (I only found extra energy through "bugs" with collitions in simulation softwares.)

    I do believe in the general possibilety of inertial thrust, especially through gyroscopic motion, but I don`t regard it as very usefull to create mechanical perpetual motion from gravity.

    My two cents:

    When Bessler wrote that a "litle more distant" from the centre will not do it, I believe he ment just that. And maybe (as can be proven elsewhere) he ment more than one thing by that statement!

    I propose (By working on the principle decoded from Besslers papers) that Besslers mechanisms and weights did everything he wrote about it. Therefor what he says it should not do, it doesn`t do either. And I found that his descriptions are more accurate than many allow themself to believe. As he wrote: "I simply can`t explain it clearer".
    Therefor I propose that the wheel also where overbalanced as he implied, with more weights on one side than the other, using his own chosen word: Preponderance.

    (Definition: superiority in weight, excess in number or quantity.)

    I believe the reason Besslers PM principle has not been discovered or can be found (up front) by math is that it does not rely on any motion, path or force that can be calculated or predicted from a single weight, or a single pair of weights returning to its startingpoint through a revolution. Neither through the effects of swinging/centrifugal alteration, jumping, collitions, leverage, spring-restrained motion, delayed motion, sliding/rolling, in pairs or individual groups. If it did, math, formulas or mechanical simulations would have discovered it a long time ago.

    Best wishes ang good luck with testing your idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Øystein, no problem, I understand the difficulty people have in accepting swinging of the weights as part of the process. The part that confuses is that there doesn't need to be any actual swinging at the beginning - all that happens when the first weight falls is that the second weight moves, unbalancing the wheel. Swinging does start to happen, but only when the wheel has gatherd more speed, and it does have an increasing effect as the wheel speeds up.

      When the first weight falls and moves the second weight to unbalance the wheel initially, that is the same as the boy sitting on the swing, who leans back, causing the seat to move forwards. The only difference is that the boy has to rock back and forth to generate a good swing whereas a succession of falling weight allows the swing/wheel to fully rotate.

      JC

      Delete
  14. Then can we agree that the combined energy output of all the eight weights does the trick?...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I for one can't agree with that .
      CW

      Delete
    2. Me neither. Bessler never said his wheel had eight weights. Just an assumption everyone jumps to because of something someone heard. If it wasn't for Bessler's comments about weight pairs, my guess is his wheel would have 5 weights.

      Delete
    3. Inspectors also commented that the bi-directional wheel/s was a 8 devided woodden construction, and they heard 8 bumps, so any other suggestion can not be defended from the known information! But the exact number of weights is somehow irrelevant. Because he say he could have even more weights (and crosses) to make more power if he wanted to! As much as fourfold the power is what he wrote.

      Delete
    4. Thanks 0ystein for the additional information. I had not heard that before.

      Delete
    5. If you check the drawings some of them have the four "stampers" lifted twice per revolution, to me that implies they had an influence on eight weights.

      Delete
  15. Let us not forget that when Bessler was talking about Wagner looking into his machine he mockingly
    refers to Wagner's comment of seeing his " works " . Quote :
    "If I were to reveal my art, by withdrawing the cloak of secrecy, all
    craftsmen would be able to imitate my wheel without difficulty. So
    nothing will drive me to make such a revelation, and the device will
    remain un-copied. And along comes Wagner saying he looked
    through the hole and observed my "works"! He then boasts that he
    can imitate my device! See how he struts and preens himself - yet
    he was never present to view the machine in its room at Merseburg.
    If he says he was, he's a lying pig! But, leaving on one side his
    claim to have looked inside the wheel, he now spouts the wicked
    fairy-tale that my device is merely the same as his! "
    CW

    ReplyDelete
  16. Most of these other motions that are described seem to me, to be ways of obtaining over balancing, even PO. Most over balancing techniques are reactive thus always late to the party when rotating and happen to late. The trick is to make the weight shift just before it is needed, remember Bessler just released the wheel on his single direction models and it turned. Most of these unique methods require centrifugal force to work and would not work like Bessers did. Not to say that there is not another way, no one knows. I think over balancing is possible but with an early impetus to make the weights move early enough not behind schedule.
    Alaskabobb

    ReplyDelete
  17. You all need to be rereading tg's posts made between Aug 30th 2011 and Jan 8th 2013. He claimed that the key to making a one way wheel work was sets of cords that precisely 'coordinated' the motions of eight levers with weights on their ends and the use of tension springs to assist their motion. When one has the exact correct design Bessler had the center of gravity of a one direction wheel's eight weights will always stay on one side of the axle despite wheel rotation. Yeah the design was 'simple' but so is that Rubics Cube puzzle toy I picked up at a flea market a few years ago. Even with instructions off the web I'm still not able to solve it! It has trillions of possible combos but only one makes each of the cube's six faces each have nine squares of the same color.

    mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike/TG/KenB, you are a complete mental job aren't you. You can't make your stupid spaghetti wheel work and you never will. The sooner you come to realize you are loser like your wheel, and disappear, the better we will all be.

      Until then, we ALL laugh at you.

      Delete
    2. Using an alias to protect oneself is an accepted and ofter recommended safeguard when using social media. However, using an alias to continually refer to oneself in the 3rd person is often a sign of a more serious mental condition. Based on the posts I have read so far, Ken, I think you should seek counseling from a competent mental health professional before the problem worsens.

      Demeaning comments directed towards a person with this type of problem is not helpful and is often counter productive and only re-enforces the need to further this type of behavior. mdx

      Delete
    3. Hey "mike",

      On the last topic page at the end you slung around some pretty heavy duty speculative garbage thinking, didn't you?

      While subjectively most of it was of riotous entertainment worth, some too was a bit over-the-top. (Know what I mean?)

      Really, while reading it through one can only but get the idea that you must be young - all the earmarks pointing to this impression being there-present.

      I assume that the "Collins pet troll" bit was/is supposed by yourself to be myself? And further, that I am supposed by you to be posting in all manner of other guises (nom de plume)?

      For an other of your exemplary offerings along lines similar as cited above, there was THIS gem of it's indicative kind:

      "It looks like he is now getting his looney kicks by impersonating ex posters and making it look like they are insulting others here like me who has acted as the real tg's 'defender' more then once since he left."

      Echoing the Anonymous of 12 April 2013 at 18:07 directly above and following your latest, who then asked:

      "Mike/TG/KenB, you are a complete mental job aren't you."(sic)

      I as well will now inquire likewise:

      "ARE YOU INSANE?"

      And following directly the first was the Anonymous who signed "mdx" of 12 April 2013 18:46 and who with sharp perception added the opinion that:

      ". . . Based on the posts I have read so far, Ken, I think you should seek counseling from a competent mental health professional before the problem worsens."

      Just excellent, were both of those.

      To this eye YOU, "mike", are becoming of interest more-and-more, as an object of shall we say, cynosure of an absolutely more-than-less PERVERSE sort?

      You take care now, "mike", good care.

      James

      Delete
    4. My what an 'entertaining' chorus of cowardly rantings! I only tried to mention here the overbalanced approach to Besslers wheels suggested by tg for the sake of any newcomers and that in no way justifies trying to insult me into silence. Maybe the really 'insane' ones here are those that still have delusions that I am tg or that tg is ken b or that I am ken b or whatever. These are just delusions that fill the empty heads of those with nothing better to do like maybe some serious work to solve the Bessler wheel mystery for a change. Now that its been shown in the last blog how easily any username can be stolen and used to distort the real persons words and thoughts we can proably all forget about the real tg ever making his 'second coming' here so that this blog can become relevant again. Another minor vicotry for the 'Ignorami' and another nail in the coffin of this dead and rapidly decaying post tg blog!

      You also take care now, "James", good care.


      mike

      Delete
    5. mike > TG > KenB

      The only thing that is rapidly decaying is your reputation. Interesting that no one else has this problem but you. It is not because of your poorly designed wheel or delusional ideas regarding the portraits, no, it is because of your adolescent behavior on this board. You were kicked from BW for the same ridiculous behavior. I agree with the others that you must have some serious mental problem. You can't even take a hint and stay away. That says mountains about your condition and the attention you seek. This site is doing great thanks to your exit, now please leave. I don't think you made a pest of yourself on Overunity, how about going there.

      Delete
    6. mike,

      You think you are clever saying ignorami all the time... you're not. You are just, as you say, a deluded empty head.

      I thought TG was a pain, but you take the cake! You are him, or you are a stalker of him, either way you are the true trolling nutcase here and if you don't like it here, then you should just f-ing leave. The fact that you would come here still must mean you harassing people! What do you hope to gain if there's nothing here you for you and it's just going to die? You certainly don't contribute, at least not anything that I've ever seen, and you are not doing anything to 'save' it...so leave!

      If you are not TG, then it appears you have just pissed off your idol, and if you think he is being impersonated and won't come back, then again you have no reason to stay.

      Apparently that is the way things are these days... democracy has come to an end. Instead of majority rules, it's now controlled by the crazy few that just can't stand being in the minority and waiting until tides change. Nope! They just bitch up a storm, hoping to piss off or warp enough people's minds in order to bastardize reality into what they want.
      They use marketing tactics and buzz words, and If they can't get what they want, then piss on the host's legs until he relents? Make up a conspiracy story and blame everyone else for things not being what they want them to be?

      That about right 'mike'? How DO you know so much about TG? Do you have pictures of him with his face showing through to the second portrait? Huh? Or do you just see his face every morning whilst brushing your teeth?

      A deluded empty head would keep badgering the owner of a blog with his own warped demands, caged in dire conspiracy theories. The reality is, John can do what he wants any time he wants. It isn't even a democracy. If he deleted this comment after I write it, I would not hold any animosity towards him in the least. It is his blog to do with what he pleases. Do you not get that? Are you STILL without understanding?

      No, I don't suppose a deluded empty head would get it.

      Just go! Find and make up with your buddy TG and live happily ever after...

      -Ed

      Delete
    7. Nice example here of a typical 'Ignorami' attack in progress meant to 'influence' Collins into making the target victim (me) feel 'unwelcome' around here. The tactic is simple. Arrange to have a bunch of insulting 'complaint' responses attached to the target's comment so as to try to make Collins think that 'everyone' on the blog is offended by the mere presence of that target. Then try to fill Collins email inbox with more complaints from lurkers that will also make him think the target truly is the cause of all of the problems with his blog and if only he was gone everything would be right as rain! Well, this pathetic trick might have worked on Jan 8th this year but I think Collins finally wised up to how he's being manipulated (at least I hope he did!). Funny how none of you seem concerned at all about the misuse of tg's username in the last blog. Why not? If tg was lurking out there and saw how his 'nom de plume' was being used for stupid hoax I'm sure he was probably very offended. Those that looked forward to his daily input on Bessler's wheels and were led by the hoax to expect he was soon returning here were also probably very offended. No one seems to give a damn about their feelings though. Why not?

      mike

      Delete
    8. That's all you do is write insulting complaint responses, ever since your jan 8th date. That's the only reason I started commenting about you at all ... the insults you've thrown at the rest of us, John and his blog... How its 'going to die'. Calling people Ignorami as if you were some kind of genius for coming up with that... It's not even the same number of syllables, you moron!

      Well, despite your idiotic conspiracy, apparently John doesn't mind all your bs, so I'm done with you, like I should have been before.

      John has said he doesn't mind TG coming back, so the fact that he isn't here now is TG own business. I'm sure you are still outraged that John would not want people wearing muddy shoes in his house and would ask them to take them off first before coming inside. That's because you are a selfish jerk!

      Since you are the head of your precious Ignorami, I'll let you continue with your insulting complaint responses and hang yourself.

      -Ed

      Delete
    9. Ed its not my intention to insult Collins or this blog. I actually like Collins and give him much applause for helping to spread the word about Bessler's achievement. I always tell newcomers to read his books on Bessler as much as I can. I only say what I do about the sorry state of this blog because I find the change in it since last year very depressing and the last blog's pathetic username hoax didn't help one bit. No I'm not the 'head of the Ignorami'. I'm their worst nightmare because I know all their tricks from watching them used to harrass tg (and others) who was only trying to have a serious discussion here about Bessler's wheels so this place would be something more than just a series of 'piles' of 'entertaining banter'. This is not the only blog they are active on. Yes there really are people out there that don't want to ever see pm achieved unless they are the ones to do it. Anyone who shows up on the web with any kind of entusiasm for the subject or thinks they have a solution will automatically come under attack by them. They are not skeptics which are a different kind of animal. 'Ignorami' know Bessler acheived pm but because they were not able to do it even though they consider themselves 'geniuses' they assume no one else ever will and anyone who even hints they might be able to is immediately considered a mental case by them and worthy of as many insults and dirty tricks as possible. The 'Ignorami' never reveal themselves. They prefer to work from the shadows anonymously and often use stooges to do their dirty work for them. Most of the stooges do not even know that they are stooges! That's because they were slowly brainwashed into serving the 'Ignorami' by the 'climate' of ridicule and character assassination they've already created on the web (anyone doubting this only needs to read the replies to my simple comment above!). You may think I'm a 'selfish jerk' but the reality is that I'm probably this blogs best friend because I'm alerting people here to the tactics that are being used right here on this blog! Exposure of their methods is the one thing the 'Ignorami' fear the most. It makes them powerless and imo that's the best possible thing that can happen to the subject of pm.

      mike

      Delete
  18. Its called narcissism. A feeling of inadequacy often associated with a small penis or worthless Bessler wheel.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. After seeing the videos of metal bars ringing like bells, once struck lightly on the end,
    I wondered if this vibration could be used to shake something like lead shot to one end of a container, thereby causing an overbalance.
    A simple dangling pendulum could be used as a striker.

    ReplyDelete
  20. John, by pure accident I found these two sites , Evoligram/Eneagram, and anti-gravity from centrifugal force discovered, by ffeijdrug, both on youtube, the similarity to the wheel of fifths, and the use of pentagrams is what made them catch my eye.
    Maybe nothing, but worth a look anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting Stevo, thanks.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, just checked out Ramon Llull,(the guy mentioned in the video) now he is interesting, his work was supposed to have influenced Leibnitz, lots of letter coding wheels etc.
      Maybe something there for our codebreakers, unfortunately most of the sites are in Spanish, Italian, and some German, so I cannot understand some of it.
      Once again, maybe nothing, but worth a look.

      Delete
    3. John, delving a bit deeper into the Enneagram sites, I found, Gurdjieff sacred dance Sufi Enneagram dance by pavlaque.
      Base this on a Bessler pentagram, could this be the weight movement we've been looking for?

      Delete
  21. John, as near summation you opined thus

    "It is this technique that I am sure we can turn to our advantage and I believe is what Bessler incorporated within his wheels."

    which I find interesting and to which I respond with a thought:

    Whatever in actual truth it may prove to be that is the motive power laying within actual working wheels, it will be found - I predict - to be a thing ASYMMETRICALLY sensitized with respect to the uniform field of gravitational influence (pull or push) and . . .

    Being SO will of it's own self GO!

    CHEERS!

    James

    ReplyDelete
  22. The design that changed the world…

    Broadly the world can be split into two time zones, Pre-Wheel and Post-wheel…Not that there wasn't much happening in the first half, contrary to that, the whole of the first half was dedicated to the development of the design that will revolutionize the second half… An uphill task any way you care to look at it.

    It is a design that we understand, admire, are charmed by, and more importantly believe in… And, what a shape… Round…Smooth…Worthy of gaining momentum…More importantly, worthy of pushing a whole species up to speed… Because, while the Pre-wheel era was an uphill struggle, the Post-Wheel one is nothing short of the proverbial wind-in-the-hair experience… There are only a few other things that catalyzed human evolution in a way the WHEEL did… It is a design to which we owe, if not our existence, at least our development…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New reflections and thinking.

      A bit of waxing poetical and philosophical never hurt anything.

      Nicely done, Suresh.

      James

      Delete
    2. You might be focusing too much on Bessler's wheel, Suresh. For all we know what you call the 'Pre-Wheel' world could have been seen many, many other attempts to make a pm wheel with some of them even successful. Unfortunately, just like Besslers wheel they all became 'lost to history' and we do not know anything about them now. Hopefully, todays serious researchers will not let that happen with Besslers wheels. Not this time! But, there's really no guarantee of that. Bessler had his 'Ignorami' to deal with and so do we. Pm research is difficult enough without having to also fight against the constant head wind they create.

      mike

      Delete
    3. I agree with you…but there appears to be something mystical with regard to BW…Despite all the advancement in science we still find that this wheel is not making its reappearance…what really could be the valid reason or reasons then?...we can’t always blame the distracters…Though Bessler succeeded in coming up with the wheel he couldn't succeed in introducing the same into the world…and, now, 300 years have passed and there’s no hope of the same…
      Is it something to do with our mentality or attitude in dealing with it?...
      Or is there anything like one’s fate or destiny attached to it?...
      Or is it that the world lacks a genius like Bessler?...
      Or, could it be that we have no real understanding of it?...
      Or is it so much complicated and beyond a normal man’s reach?...
      Or, as you say, Is it really the prevailing negativity that is restraining it?...
      The Bessler story seems to be genuine…But, how and why was such a story allowed to be forgotten in Germany?...And, what makes that story to be rekindled now?...the more we delve into it the more enigmatic or frustrating (as Andre sir terms it) it is...

      Delete
    4. Suresh wrote 'Is it something to do with our mentality or attitude in dealing with it?...' Some of the smartest people who ever lived are alive today and have the most powerful tools available to help them. Imo Bessler wheels remain undiscoverd because most serious wheel builders become confused by the many different approaches that now clog the web and don't even know where to start. When they do start they usually move in the wrong direction and at a snail's pace using hand made wheels when they should be using computer models and sims. Bessler states in many places that his wheels were simple overbalanced wheels that used a trick he discovered to make them work which he thought God had revealed to him. I doubt his wheels will ever be solved unless the builder actually accepts that they were overbalanced and manages to find that same 'trick' he did. Talking and philosophizing endlessly about it will not get the job done. You really have to be working on it daily and not just once a month when the mood strikes. I feel good about it being found this year.

      mike

      Delete
    5. You seem to be absolutely right except one thing...It is not going to be found this year...I think it could take a couple of years more...2021...

      Delete
    6. It is not going to be found this year because the basic principle was discovered in December 2012.. ;-) Documented to be Bessler "preponderance principle" through solving and documenting Besslers "hidden codes" and "drawing-teqniques", January-April 2013. (Documented thoroughly in the manner as reviewed by J.C.)

      Building the improved version, following Besslers excact revealed spec. is starting April 2013.
      Calculated imbalance (derived from pure preponderance) equals Besslers demonstrations.
      Besslers comments also fits accurately without interpretations.

      So I just can`t let this solution go untestet/buildt.
      Exciting times. On my way to organize buildingplans with a friend.

      The process will take considerable time, but we will keep you guys updated at a later stage.

      Best wishes



      Delete
    7. Oystein…Sorry for sounding a bit radical but you say, “The process will take considerable time…”
      That is what I meant when I stated that it would take a couple of years…And, nothing can be claimed to be the right thing as Bessler’s till actually the wheel is successfully built…You may not know but I have already been able to form a very clear picture of the wheel’s internal mechanism in 2008 itself and have been narrating the same, bit by bit, since 2010 in this blog…But still I can’t claim anything for myself as the model is not yet built…
      In my opinion, the bessler wheel invention is somewhat akin to the discovery of Gravity itself by Newton…Newton only required an apple to fall on his head and did not rely on codes or any other demonstrations for reference…
      The wheel and its internal mechanism is very simple and Bessler built it several times…he did not make it appear very complicated or take so much considerable time…Karl vouched for its simplicity after just glancing inside and wondered why no one thought of it before…
      I agree that JC sir has reviewed some of your documents but he has only concluded that he is unable to comment on the usefulness or otherwise, of the information you have managed to extract.
      You also say about building the improved version…this is not clear…We only need to know the actual thing not the improved version…
      You also say that you just can`t let this solution go untestet/buildt…But can you be very sure of the outcome and give us a positive assurance?…testing is only done to test if it can work…in other words, it can also mean potential failure…
      And, finally, if you are really very sure about the whole thing then can you just tell us how it works, the number of weights and the lever mechanism,etc,.…of course…in an obscure manner…
      Sorry again…no offence…and, good luck from my side also...

      Delete
    8. Thank you! I will try to answer your question as clear I can.

      By considerable time I mean the time it takes for two guys, meeting after our two year old sons have gone to sleep at night, in a garage, every now and then.

      To put it in perspective: Bessler wrote he would use about 6 months building a bi directional wheel, and that a skilled craftsman would use 1 month. (working full time I guess).

      By improved, I mean, that the mechanism that was revealed to me by solving the "codes" in Bessler papers was a big improvement from what I originally deduced from MT and that together with the all over positive calculations thereafter left me with no choice but to go for it. (Even if I have thought myself to be restrained and sceptical to exciting new ideas, as they often tend fail after the second, third or fourth round of unbiased calculations.)There are no doubt this mechanism is something Bessler left information about, but I can never be 100% shure that I somehow have missed some extra information somewhere. That is why I have not jumped at building at once. As I think that is not the right way. The mind can work faster that the hands, and I really wanted to be as shure as I could.

      We will build it with 12 weights, and we believe it will be a always out of balance wheel. The wheel will have 3 of what we call "crosses". One cross consists of 4 weights. (A litle like MT25) A cross, is in our case a "module" wich are placed side by side with the other modules on a common axle. These "crosses" can also be mounted inside a drum, without being made as "modules".

      The vital movement has some similarities (but more positive--> preponderance) to what is indicated in MT21 and executed in MT23. But there are no resisting "rolling-board" involved. The weights are themself their own "prime-mover", (a term often discussed.)

      There also are a coordinating principle that I will not discuss.
      Alone the mechanisms are useless.

      That is about what I can say.



      Delete
    9. Thanks…Oystein…I should say that you have made a very considerable progress…leaving Trevor and likewise much, much behind…You seem to be near the house but not exactly at it still…The track is right, of course…Your initial results may not be very successful though it appears promising as more refining is needed…it is a bit more simpler than you have made it to be…you are very much right in saying that the weights themselves are the prime movers…this is what I was trying to convince an anon recently…no additional prime mover is needed…make sure that 8 sounds are heard if you want it the way bessler built it…
      If one really wants to complete the building fast it shouldn’t take that much time…Much less than a month with all the technology available today…I still strongly believe that it can be achieved with eight weights only…the levers have to be specially designed…In my mental design it is of 8 crossbars…with one weight at each end…In case, you are not able to succeed with all your efforts we can get together in the distant future and release the thing to the world…Because, I too have some ground breaking findings not found anywhere…Codes don’t reveal all the vital points…intuition plays a leading role…
      And, finally, take cue from me…the concept is so simple that when you possess the real one you’ll know for sure that it is 100% right, even before going for the build…

      Delete
    10. It can be achieved by eight weights! But it would not be the optimal number.
      Why do you think Bessler stated that his pronciple could be improved and have 4 times more power IF he wanted to? Adjusting power by adding more crosses, pulls and weights is what he wrote elsewhere . He was criticized for the lack of power, and still he could improve it if he wanted to. It must be because he limited it to support bi-directionality. (having "dead spots" so it could be stopped)

      The mechanisms. You are right they are very simple (especially on paper) and are basicly single pairs of weights mounted on Besslers "hidden lever-mechanisms" and doing just the movements Bessler described about the weights. But a mechanism can not be constructed if using 8 internal "bars"/rods. 10 is a minimum, viewed in 2D or else the most basic and vital movement/function is not possible. And as I have found, a pair of weights is useless alone, and fits mechanically nice with a second pair, making the basis for our "module concept" (for easier mounting and construction). You may have 4, 8 12 or maybe as much as 16 or 24 weights totally. But there are also a upper limit to the usefullness of adding more mechanisms/weights.

      4 weights (what we call a cross, with the ref. to Besslers descriptions) would barely turn a wheel, and I think you would need good tuning and some degree of flywheel-effect to get it working usefully, as the movement is kind of "step" based. If the next module is mounted, all the weights will perform better etc.

      Of course it could be buildt in 14 days, or maybe a week if you have the time and the equipement at hand.

      Delete
    11. I fully agree with you…you seem to have done your home work very well…You also seem to have more than 75% info right…We differ a bit…In my mental model the weights have to be a minimum of eight (ATLEAST) and in multiples of four thereafter…and, the secret here is not to rely on computer simulations…Since the mechanism is simple it can be mentally visualized…I actually don’t go by the term crossbar…each lever is independent and is a radius not the diameter…hence, I would require 8 wts and 8 levers to perform the magic… I don’t employ them as modules but just levers and wts…You can think of getting the lever mechanisms done from some local engineering shop as per your specifications and build the supporting structure yourself and in this way you could save time…the aid of springs is necessary to hasten the swing if you want to build it with 8 weights…
      I think what Bessler meant when he stated that the power can be increased four times is that it can be achieved by doubling the 8 mechanisms to 16 on the same axle or even to 12…this is possible but only the axle has to be sturdy…In my opinion, what causes the maximum confusion is that we think of the bi-directional wheel while experimenting…we should only stick to the initial single directional wheel…
      The swings, the landings, the way the wts take short cuts before coming a full circle all look very interesting while in action and simple too…you could achieve success easily after having come so far but except for something that is missing…Well, keep going on…

      Delete
    12. I can see that we differ very much on the basics. Good luck to you though.

      Delete
    13. Sounds impressive so far, Oystein. Beslser hinted in MT that he could make Leupolds wheel work with his connectedness principle. Leupolds wheel had twelve weights on the ends of small levers that were arranged independently of each other around the wheel's rim (no connections between levers). Yes thats the secret. Finding a design that is always 'out of balance'. Thats what everyone is dreaming about finding. Best of luck with your effort.

      mike

      Delete
  23. I think you mean "principle", not "principal"...

    Christ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. interj
      Taboo slang an oath expressing annoyance, surprise, etc. See also Jesus

      Delete
    2. Does it not need ! to be interj ?

      Delete
  24. SUPERIOR WEIGHT *** ANOTHER CLUE *** A HIDDEN DESIGN


    In MT15, Bessler says the figure derives from the previous model with the addition of "special" weights. He also says the figure shows the "superior" weight.

    What are the "special" weights? They are weight pairs connected with fixed length rods, creating crossbars that shift radially thru the axle.

    So what is so "superior" about the weight?

    Obviously the design shows the superior weight in a "quantity" sense because the total number of weights has increased, but that's too obvious. If the intent was to increase the overall mass, why not simply increase the mass of each individual weight already present. Further, there are still the same number of weights on the ascending side as on the descending side, so adding these weight pairs did nothing to change the number of weights on either side of the wheel.

    I think Bessler meant superior in a "quality" sense. The new weight pairs show a different way of shifting the weights to an overbalanced position (radially versus pivoting outwards on levers). Keep in mind that in MT9-MT16, the weights pivot outwards in the direction the wheel rotates - this not only means outward horizontally, but also upwards and downwards vertically. Two challenges come to mind when using the pivoting method. One, the CoM of the wheel changes as the weights pivot, and two, you not only have to lift the weights vertically, but you also have to make the weights move faster than the wheel is moving to get them into the outward position. These challenges are eliminated if you simply raise the weights in pairs radially.

    So in MT15, when Bessler says the figure shows the superior weight, I think he is saying it shows the superior weight connection and shifting method. He also says "nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced". That seems to be the missing piece of the puzzle.

    Start with a wheel consisting of nothing but weight pairs, add a mechanism (prime mover) near the axle to lift each weight pair as it rotates past the vertical position, and you now have a new type of overbalanced design that I think even Karl would say is very simple.


    Just my opinion. Any comments are welcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The entire mystery of this puzzle is all about the play of lever and weight…this lever-weight system is the heart or you can say the soul of the Bessler wheel…superior weights could also mean the special design of the weight itself…remember, it was concealed in a handkerchief…this was done to conceal that specialty…

      Delete

  25. Zoelra you have finally seen the light (hopefully). If you Study the Apologia drawing, MT10 and MT13 deeply, you will find the answer. I have told John I have solved the 1lb lifting 4lb clue, but I think he did not believe me. Yes, I can lift 4lb up while 1 lb goes down, the same height. it is a very simple mech. I will stay a ghost for now (only John will know me and I hope he will stay quite. Please).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous 15 April 2013 00:03

      Congratulations, it sounds like you are making positive progress.

      As for myself,I no longer think in terms of up and down, or left and right, only forwards and backwards. An odd concept until you know the application.

      Delete
  26. If the kiiking swing pivot was geared to something in order to get work out of the kiiking, wouldn't it be more difficult to get the swing over the top?
    You'd be trying to kiik your own weight around and turn the gear to pump water, lift stamps or whatever.
    Hmmm?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, imagine there were say, five riders standing on their own seats all attached to the same swing pivot/axle.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, what if there was just one big kiiking pendulum, swinging back and forth, turning the standard eight arm "Union Jack" wheel a little more than 45 deg.
      It would then turn the next 45 deg. to find equilibrium,etc. etc.

      Delete
    3. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE AN IMPOSTER HERE ... CAN ANYONE SAY MIKE > TG > KENB > NUTJOB ...

      Delete
    4. What's up anonymous?
      Have I come too close to one of your ideas and made it public ?
      Trying to put people off by using infantile tactics, so they don't build first?

      Delete
    5. By the way, anonymous, check JC's posting under Prize Funding etc. 11 April, 19:18.
      Why would TG pose as someone else ?

      Delete
    6. John Collins' blog name is John Collins, not John. Did you not notice that?

      So why would TG pose as someone else, you mean why would KenB pose as TG, or mike.

      Because he has a mental disorder.

      Delete
  27. TG’s faults…Lengthy writings…Not even listening to the owner of this blog in this matter…getting into lengthy arguments with Anons…appearing in different names…what he should understand is that he could also be wrong in his understanding of the wheel’s internal mechanism…Here, he never listens…
    Anons’ faults…Attacking/criticizing/even abusing other contributors with unbearable filthy words including the genuine ones and not even sparing the owner of the blog in this regard…They have literally infested this blog…Not having their own identities…not making any useful or worthwhile contributions…suggesting rules to the owner of the blog…acting in a very high handedness manner…
    CONCLUSION: Justice has to be fair…Here, both the parties are at fault…Anons are no less, they have been playing havoc since even before TG arrived at the scene…there apparently is no control over them…their main fault is that they are here without any identity…Hence, both the parties have to realize their mistakes…The good thing about TG is that he is more informative, mostly obeys the owner of the blog, atleast has some identity and his attacks on anons are a bit polite…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fact is while he was here he kept this blog centered on bessler. Now it seems to be centered on anonymous insults being hurled back and forth. His comments tended to be long, but were very informative. He had his approach (that "right track" stuff) and stuck with it. It's amazing the amount of abuse he had to endure to do that. I found his conviction impressive and even inspirational. He also showed respect for other approaches even when he stated he did not think they were "the" one bessler used.

      Delete
    2. To Suresh and Anon 16 April 2013 09:08

      Look back at the last two topics and see how many insults are being hurled back and forth. I think you will find few to none are being made, except to mike, TG, and Ken. But that is Ken's fault for his ridiculous behavior. Certainly they are not infesting this site as you (Suresh) have said. If you still do not agree, count the number of posts with insults to mike/tg/ken and compare that to the total number of comments. It won't take a rocket scientist to see.

      And as far as NOT listening goes, Suresh, you need to pay attention to what everyone else here is saying and maybe you will see that your idea of lever-weight system has little to no merit. You may have a clear vision of the wheel, but it is your vision, and not one piece of evidence exists to say it was Bessler's. No one is agreeing with you, you need to see that. Time to move on man, take a clue from the others who are actually making progress. No offense intended, just friendly advice.

      Delete

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...