I've strived to understand how Johann Bessler produced what appeared to be a continuously-turning wheel, sometimes called a Perpetual Motion machine, and in doing so I've suffered from a variety of psychological stresses. Some don't believe in Bessler's claims but are intrigued to know how he fooled everyone, both then and now. They make their opinion clear and in turn receive the brickbats from those others equally vociferous in defence of the legendary inventor. Others such as myself, are firmly of the opinion that his claims were just and honest and I've spent my life seeking the answer to this puzzle but from the stand-point that he knew the real secret to perpetual motion.
As a researcher I spend every hour available for research, striving to be the one who succeeds in the search. This is not necessarily due to a desire for fame and fortune, though I cannot think that anyone would reject some kind of recogition for success. Neither do I blame anyone for seeking those attractive rewards which should be given to that person who finds success in this rather limited field.
Politicians often fall back on something they refer to as 'received wisdom'. Basically it is the official, stuffy, unimaginative and conventional viewpoint. And it sometimes turns out to be wrong. In this field of endeavour it is the idea that a gravity-enabled wheel that turns continuously is not possible. Speaking for myself, I am desperate to prove that the received wisdom is wrong and many times in the past I have posted on forums my personal conviction that I am about to prove it, only to find that I was wrong. Even as far back as 1997 I thought I had solved the mystery and having said so publicly, received many scornful comments and suggestions that I should either put up or shut up. These responses hurt at the time but experience teaches us humility and the wisdom to know when to keep silent and let only the successful machine speak for itself.
I am frequently surprised to read so often of others who make the same mistake that I made - and I still do in private conversations! Why is it so hard to control the exuberance, excitement and utter certainty that I'm on the verge of success? Why can't I restrain this strange desire to trumpet my news abroad before I have the certainty of a working wheel? It doesn't seeem to occur to me at the time, that everyone feels that they are on the verge of success, or have had a revelation that they believe will lead to success
I confess I don't know, and I have to admit to suffering mild irritation when reading such comments as appeared recently on the besslerwheel forum and from time to time here on this blog. Let people tell the world after they have the proof, and not before. Without the working wheel there is nothing to shout about.
If I succeed in building a besslerwheel you will only know of it when it is running, and not before.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
So...your line of reasoning implies that you should shut down this blog and everything that it implies and let the working machine speak for itself . So until then ,
ReplyDeleteCheers ( I don't drink BTW )
CW
Seriously , I , being at least in the top ten of those who can't restrain themselves . I think the problem is from reading Bessler " the secret to the mobile came to me at last " ... we have an expectation that when we conceive of it we will also recognize it . To me , it doesn't really matter ( how many egos are bruised or how many people are armchair diagnosed ) as long as someone finds the solution . It's not like if we start behaving ourselves and act respectably for a change the Einstein's of the world are gonna trot over and solve it for us ! I say carry on . You could be closer than you think ( or of course , not .
DeleteCW
Speaking of Einstein , I think he would say " to each his own capabilities " :
Deletehttps://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/397867_188447934643377_592719624_n.jpg
CW
Nice one CW!
DeleteJC
Chris, if you don't drink are you bipolar then? At times your comments are rather rational, and other times highly egotistical, like a runaway train.
DeleteAnyway, look up the word mortgage and you will see why we should behave ourselves.
I agree with John here, except for his continued use of the word 'we'. ;-)
-Ed
Sorry Ed, I don't think it's a Royal 'we, more a case of me keeping my head down in a crowd. I'll replace them and see how it looks.
DeleteJC
I've done a little editing to the blog!
DeleteJC
I'm not so much bipolar as I am caffeinated . I'm just a guy who has many very different interpretations of the " mechanism " . I always get my inspirations after I have basically given up . My latest design has me more convinced than ever and yet I am sitting on it , so to speak and have modeled ( animated ) two different versions of it . I assure you I am REALLY trying and my build ( actual ) is what I would call retrofit because the idea has changed slightly along the way . Anyway I am not ALL puppy-dog-tails and braggart ... I have some actual substance .
DeleteCW
No problem John. I look forward to your next blog post about the bird being the word. :-)
DeleteAfter reading all books, I never doubted Bessler's truthfulness.
ReplyDeleteI seriously don't think he would go to all that trouble just to lie . The deception would be so much simpler to explain if it was so . Perhaps the maid , although sworn to the written oath was also ( verbally ) sworn to lie to protect the secret ... as in something akin to " if I can not protect my machine you must divert interest in it . "
DeleteCW
I don't understand how anyone could be excited over having a working bessler wheel, a bessler wheel is really boring , is all it does is rotate perpetually, thats all it does, nothing else.
ReplyDeleteOh and also I forgot to mention you can also time travel with it by adding special crystals and getting it to rotate in four dimensional space.
DeleteI know we moved to a new topic, but I wanted to add to what STEVO and JC said at the end of the previous topic.
ReplyDeleteSTEVO 18 May 2013 01:10
Wait a minute,
parametric oscillation,
one cord,
one weight moving up and down,
children playing,
isn't that a YO-YO ?
John Collins 18 May 2013 06:45 (Reply)
Yes Stevo! I think you've got it! :-)
How about a WHEE-LO. Check out the YouTube video below. About 22 seconds into the video, the girl stops moving and lets the disk move up and down on its own. Imagine the disk is the weight, the wire rails a wheel spoke, and the girls hand the axle of the wheel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcNrAE9wnZU
I just happened to catch this video. Interesting how the weight shifts. First motion is with arms over the head, then arms down to waist. This could be a useful principle.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=xXwiK9jSLqc&feature=endscreen
I remember having both of those toys. They were a lot of fun.
DeleteBut my favorite toy was "Baby's First Chainsaw".
WOW! Did I make a mess with that!
Collins said 'If I succeed in building a besslerwheel you will only know of it when it is running, and not before.' When tg was here there was several times he stated he was 99.5% or even 99.9% of the way to success and would shortly deliver confirming test results to mark some special occasion or honor Bessler (which he sometimes called the 'Master'). Each time he failed to make it 100% of the way and had to then put up with the jeers of various 'Ignorami' stooges who took delight with his failures. But, that never stopped him from continuing wiht his research which apparently made slow progress over the months. Who knows where that research is now. It's very interesting that he had no intention of actually building a working wheel. His definition of success is just to have a working computer model of a Bessler wheel that is free of bugs and can be used by more handy builders as a guide to making their own physical wheel. I know you builder types tend to be secretive and afraid that you will give away a billion dollar secret if you mention the details of what you are working on. But, its far more likely you don't have a desing that will work but which still might have some good points to it that could help inspire another builder to move in the right direction with a different design. Even Newton when commenting on his research said that he had 'stood on the shoulders of giants' meaning that his work was inpired by earlier works of guys like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. Their concepts did not work exactly, but they helped a later guy, Newton, to come up with concepts that did. Einstein would not have had anything to theorize about if he did not read of earlier concepts that were not quite right. So you don't have a working physical wheel yet? So what?! The real question is whether you now have a concept that might be made workable even if someone else has to do it. If it is workable, it will quide the next generation of builders in that direction and if it is not then maybe it can be made workable or can be used as a way of warning builders not to waste time with it. When concepts get hidden, that gives the 'Ignorami' another victory. They just love it when they can silence serious researchers as they did tg on this blog back in early Jan of this year. Don't let them do to you what they did to him (and others!) here. They were really peeved when this blog made a return after the 'hiatus' since they were counting on the huge victory of seeing it permanently shut down. Expect them to double up on their efforts in the coming months! Posting the details of what you are working on will be a good way of telling them to take their negative attitude and shove it!
ReplyDeletemike
TG.left because he would not reduce the lengths of his posts and not because of his successes or failures.
DeleteJohn said he can always come back if he wants to.
Personally, I would not commit to building a physical prototype based on someone else's computer model. At the very least I'd want to build my own computer model of the concept, from scratch.
DeleteFor some months now I have been getting positive, but small, energy gains in my computer models. But I wouldn't expect anyone else to be convinced by them. Currently I can get about 0.1 watts of power per kilogram of active mass. Only if I can reach, say, 1 watt per kilogram will I commit to building a physical prototype.
I don't often agree with you Mike, but I have to admit you make a good point. I'm one of those 'builder types' and I have concept which I think will work and I keep it secret in case some else should use it and get there ahead of me. However if something should happene to me before I succeed I have made provision for the idea to be published just in case my earlier than anticipated demise should occur.
ReplyDeleteJC
OK then, a selection of my current lines of enquiry (ie. insane ramblings follow):
ReplyDelete1) Shift energy = RKE (i actually measured gain for both course and fine measurements, but in the millijoule / microjoule range, below significance)... but what about spring loading to offset the shiftwork? Besides, most of the retraction energy can be recouped on extension, or vice versa depending on whether your levers are lifted out, or fall out.. In principle i don't see why shift energy and subsequent RKE can't be decoupled....? TBC
2) Hanging scissorjacks can add positive torque on both extension and retraction, in alternate 180° phases ("as one weight gives an upward impetus..". I think the subsequent RKE is all input energy tho, but intend to check this more thoroughly. An asymmetry here might be of the inertial, rather than gravitational, class.
3) There seems to be a preponderance of references to cross-axle connections. MT 10, 17, 41-42, 138-141 (presumably to be solved 4 different ways), and the Apologia wheel for example. One obvious route to OU is to have a weight lift itself, falling upwards, and this could easily be achieved if the position of a weight, and its place of application, can vary such that a weight on the left is 'felt' on the right, and vice versa. So a weight at 6 o'clock would be acting at the 12 o'clock position, and so on, in the ideal scenario. I doubt such extremes are possible, but even a slight effect could mean OU. Do scissorjacks somehow help achieve such an inversion? Switching between a hanging and fixed position determines whether a weight can find its own center-of-gravity, or whether the wheel must turn instead. My current hunch is some kind of semi-fixed lever, that takes a small input mass to apply the weight of a larger mass to the 'wrong' side of the wheel - even if it only lifts a quarter turn, that'd be gain right there, and there'd be more in them there hills...
But yes, the half-written patent application in my Bessler folder is based on completely different principals - 90° shifts (a vertical falling weight drags a previously-fallen one back in) - and now that's last month's news too. I could see it wasn't coming together with just 4 rails, but then went and added the other 4 anyway just to keep the dream alive a day longer.. like delaying checking a lotto ticket... i was gonna buy the solid gold rocket car and everything...! I'd correctly sussed that it doesn't work with radial sliders (the excess weight's always on the wrong side, and/or you run out of vertical drops), but the off-radial design i'd chosen instead opened up a circumferential gap upon extension that exactly countered any torque gained. Doh!
The important things are tenacity, being able to dump an idea and move on, alcohol helps, and having a proper energy asymmetry hypothesis to work with - there has to be a tangible input vs output force / distance disparity, at least in theory, to start with. Even if it's wrong. And don't give up too easy either - Bessler must've taken his share of faceplants. But the lesson of MT is to suss out what's wrong with the design, improve on it if possible, if not learn what you can and move on. Parametric oscillation may yet be a viable route - what if you could somehow 'rectify' alternate components of both a shortening and lengthening swing, and recombine them to produce a 'super swing' with higher force and displacement, and an 'afterbirth arc' with less all round? Net energy's constant, but asymmetrically apportioned, dump the loss and keep the gain. It's a purely abstract hypothesis, but a real theoretical gain... is it mechanically possible though?
(Incidentally we should all be looking out for losses too. Easily overlooked, it's still a possible asymmetry and may be reversible. Check out any discrepancies in wind-down times between either direction...)
Believe it or not , whoever this nut is ... I can relate to some of what he is saying ! The thing is I may have answered some of those questions already .
DeleteCW
It might be worth having a private brainstorming forum, wherein all members agree to equally divide the booty, whoever makes the final push. That way we get the benefits of free exchange of ideas without forfeiting our fame and luxury yachts.
ReplyDeleteIts value though is certainly beyond question. The principal, if it can be nailed, is likely not unique to gravitation - rather, it is a mechanically-asymmetric interaction. Thus any applied force may be used - such as EM, or even just rotary or linear inertial forces; massively boosting power density and range of application. It would be a 'general purpose OU motor/generator'... or at least a good start on one. Which is nice.
Classical symmetry breaks ARE possible. They're entirely dependent on the conservation laws, and every step in Bessler's cycle is consistent with Newton. The forces are powered by the vacuum, but who cares who or what picks up the tab, provided it's safe.. So keep the faith...
Ooh i just had another idea... it's super top-secret but i know i can trust you nutjobs: How's about a 'jacob's ladder' mechanism whereby the axle can decouple from the wheel via a clutch, and the weights move radially or are mounted on folding arms such that when the net wheel is maximally balanced, the axle is maximally unbalanced, and thus the weights can 'fall' twice per lift - once by rotating the wheel, and then again by rotating against the axle or co-axle. Is that... a thing? Dunno. It's gone 7am, last beer of the night and i'll probably never remember what i was on about when i wake up anyway...
ReplyDeleteWow ... I read some of it ... but can't seem to bother with the bulk of it . My BS detector goes off more loudly for the longer posts .
ReplyDeleteCW
Same here - my eyes start to glaze over!
DeleteJC
Hi John,..I'm in trouble again.
DeleteMy irrepressible enthusiasm has caused me to give myself a deadline of ten days to finnish the working wheel.
Needless to say the guys on Besslerwheel.com are seething with contempt over that, too bold a statement.
This is day 0 so the countdown has begun!
We are keeping a close eye on you. Get the wheel done or else.
DeletePatrick Star says it best ... what ...
DeleteSorry Trevor, the clock started on the seventeenth, so you'd better get moving and stop your suckling.
DeleteSuckling, funny.
DeleteTrevor, if you are over here, please explain what you have left to do on your wheel? Are you really that close? Thanks.
-Ed
Good luck Trevor. You can do it.
DeleteJC
ED.believe me I that close.
DeleteIt's just a prototype of two weights just to prove the principle.
I'm not going to construct the eight weight version until I see whats needed to improve the efficiency,would you not agree.
The weights are installed and all that is left to do is the prime mover and the polariser.
It's day two,as you reminded me,so back to work!
Is premature affirmation the kind of thing that will leave your wife dissatisfied ? ;)
DeleteCW
Thank you CW, it was just my little play on words!
DeleteJC
Anyone working on a wheel that uses water ?
ReplyDeletemy gut feeling when reading A.P. is that the wheel uses water or a liquid.
there are many references in A.P. that sit well with describing a liquid and wonder if it's either coincidental, or actual clever hidden references hinting at the workings of the wheel.
P.47
I actually made a wheel ( complete ) out of water bladders and angled pvc . The concept was that the pressure in the lower bladder would pump the water to the top as it swung underneath , but , for the concept water was just as heavy as anything else .
DeleteCW
Cheers Chris,
DeleteP.s. you may remember me from emails the last time you posted the over layed MT pics on the BW forum.
does the latest image you found contain an s shaped device at it's center, "the s could be reversed depending on how it was arranged".
it also shows a parallelogram, or a device that could represent the correct use of the hammermen toy.
not using water myself, though think it's strange that there are references.
P.47
Zey uze zeds inztead!
DeleteOnly joking,
Check out Drebble's Perpetual Mobile, not a wheel, but it did work using water and atmospheric pressure.
It's more of an Atmos clock really, but interesting all the same.
Correction ... I built two different wheels based on water designs . The other used accordion type flexible hose to siphon and pump the water along with weights on levers .
DeleteCW
Also , to answer the question above ... I'm no longer seeing anything in the MT or AP wheel that's apparently not there . Not saying it couldn't be but just saying I am no longer looking there .
DeleteCW
Is P.47 a reference to page 47 in AP? If so, that page is in German. Anyone know the page of the english version? Thx.
DeleteAnon
DeleteP.47 is a reference to euclids proposition 47.
http://www.mastersjewel.com/masons/symbols/47thproblem/index.html
P.47
Zhe zecret zis zin zhe drawingz.
ReplyDeleteMoron! Germans don't use that many Zees...
DeleteI does speak zhe old german that I did learn in germany when I invented the time machine. The vweight swingz out and thenz does swing back in .
Delete"Neither do I blame anyone for seeking those attractive rewards which should be given to that person who finds success in this rather limited field."
ReplyDeleteI would blame them for being ignorant. Free energy inventors do get rewarded. Most of the energy inventors have no money and are starving. That is what happened to Nikola Tesla.
I would keep everything and say to hell with the world like Johann Bessler done .
"Free energy inventors do not get rewarded"
DeleteJohann Bessler was treated very badly by the German people.
John, name one free energy inventor who has been rewarded.
ReplyDeleteThere is none.
You are giving people false hope here.
Anatoly Georgievich Ufimtsev,
Deleteinventor of first reliable wind generator, using a mechanical accumulator which utilized a vacuum, once run up to 20,000 r.p.m. it would continue to run for 15 days.
From what I've read about Bessler (and tg's interprettation of his wheels) it seems that they were just simple cord interconnected levers with lead weights attached to their ends. As a wheel rotated, the levers would continuously and automatically shift themselves so to keep the center of gravity of their weights on the wheel's descending side. Springs played a very important role in this process and that is why tg pointed out there were so many spring symbols in the two dt portraits. Using springs Bessler found a way to make the rising side levers momentarily weightless or just perfectly counter balanced so that they could 'rise in flash' and keep shifting the dropping center of gravity of the weights back onto the descending side and away from that 'punctium quietus' spot below the axle. Anyone trying to duplicate Besslers wheels must find out exactly how he did this trick. If tg is right that trick's details are in the portraits but will require a huge amount of research / building to extract. If one is not using the portraits to quide his research then he's not really working on finding the secret of Bessler's wheels! Sooner or later the secret will be re-discovered.
ReplyDeletemike
From what I've read about Bessler's wheels (and Doug's interpretation of them and tg's wheel), no matter what parts you include in a wheel (springs , cords, weights, levers, what have you), the forces and torques cancel each other. A wheel ,with nothing attached to the axle to provide torque, can't turn it self. It's the bootstrap thing.
Deleteken/TG this is the same information you keep peddling without any success to back up your claims. You might take this topic to heart and go build a wheel. If you ever succeed you can come back and rub it in our faces.
DeleteJohn ,If you could institute a login feature and a tick box option saying remember me.
ReplyDeleteIt would be so much more convenient and we would be rid of these spammers.
Think about it,it works well on Besslerwheel.com.
Hi Trevor. I've taken another look but there is no facility for doing what you suggest However, instead of simply deleting the spam, I've marked it as spam, I don't know if that will make any difference, but I probably should do that anyway.
DeleteIt seems that there maybe something I can do, unofficially, leave it with me, I'll try.
JC
Thanks John.
DeleteThis is a test ...
DeleteGuess who's back ...