Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Out of ideas? Cross bars and parametric oscillation?

It may have been noticed that the number and frequency of blogs has sharply diminished of late, and the reasons are several.  Subjects relating to Bessler are getting harder to discuss as the finishing line looms closer.  Writing about the subject without giving away anything about my research limits what comments I can make and it is clear that the Besslerwheel forum is suffering from the same affliction; people are running out of ideas to discuss.  I am also keenly aware that every time I make a statement such as I believe that  I am on the final stretch towards the finish, I sound like every other would-be winner of this race to exhibit the first gravity wheel in 300 years.

I often read comments on the besslerwheel forum which seek to affirm certain suppositions as facts and which I at least know are incorrect.  My problem is that when I know for certain that they are wrong I am unable to make any comment to correct this impression if it relates to anything which might give away the principle which I have discovered lies at the heart of the Bessler wheel.

How do I know with such certainty that they are wrong?  I can best answer this with an example.  It has often been stated with considerable self-assurance that we will never know if the wheel, when the solution is eventually found, will be the same configuration as Bessler's.  I can state with equal certainty that we will know, because I have already found enough evidence to convince everyone that the design lies there for all to see if only they can put the correct clues together.  Remember Bessler's word found written across the first page of Bessler's Maschinen Tractate; 

N.B. 1st May, 1733.  Due to the arrest, I burned or hid all the woodcuts that prove the possibility.  However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them'. "

These words are the important ones, as I have said before - taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them.

I have found the correct illustrations and have put certain parts of them together to obtain a movement or action that demonstrates the principle.  I found the principle which, by the way, involves parametric oscillation as suggested by Scott many years ago on the forum - and also, independently, by professor Hal Puthoff in private correspondence with me several years ago - from other clues in Bessler's drawings, but I have to say that I discovered the Bessler-Collins principle myself first and then found it confirmed in a drawing by Bessler.

You may say, "where is the wheel then?" which is a fair question and I can only tell you that it is being worked on.  Knowing the principle alone is not sufficient and the delay in finishing it lies in deciding how to arrange just one cross bar or cross or crossing to make the principle work.

Speaking of cross bars,  Creuz, the word used by Bessler, and translated as cross bar, has a multitude of meanings and could refer to clubs, as in playing cards, or sharps as in music, or traverse, or of course the letter X - or it might just refer to the shape of a cross in the design of his mechanisms, but in the end it seems to indicate how many mechanisms he employed.  One was scarcely sufficient to turn the wheel but more worked better.

I shall continue to write blogs but they need more care in presenting my thoughts, given that the solution would be so easy to give away, and - selfishly, I admit - I would like to be the one who succeeds with my own version of Bessler's wheel.  As I've promised before, the work I've done will be published if I can't succeed soon so until then I shall keep reconfiguring the mechanism until it does what I want - or give up!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

19 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Michel, for that ingenious animation. I had considered the bible reference Matth 15 as a potential clue but I could not see how it related to the AP wheel - very clever!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. John, this most recent of yours I found a really nice post; one of the best actually.

    Yes, but a "single cross-bar" should do it if we ("we") have it right finally.

    For my own part I always envisioned the thing as being an actual connection, you know, as in a "connectedness principle" finally realized?

    So, pondering laterally as well as vertically now, just what might such a combination seek to accomplish ideally?

    Well, actually it is simple: To take from one side the energy acquired from the fall of it's own weight, and to add that to the other. Simple!

    However, once done, would this be the end of the task as in 'mission accomplished'?

    Ha! NOT in your life nor in mine!

    According to the vile rantings of whore Necessity herself (she and her pesky dictates as shouted to a way too gullible world), much more is to be added YET . . . for any attainments of any rotatory self-life to ever manifest.

    (In considering that statement regarding some supposed 'simplicity' as to what Johann showed him for pay, it might be of no small utility to remember the fact that Landgrave Karl collected very many very complicated mechanisms - watches, clocks, scientific demonstrators etc., and so in realizing this, I have long-taken the "simple mechanism" statement with a particularly-sized salt grain. If solicited, to others I'd recommend this same as well.)

    As for matters so occult such as parametric oscillation and such, I've no knowledge nor sense and, ' am suspicious as to any actual utility, apropos our need.

    As regards the prime question it's self " "where is the wheel then?" " I would append as quite likely applicable an other - "any day now" - a real perennial favorite, over there at BWF seemingly?

    From your quarter we ("we") DO await results . . .

    James

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you James for your (as usual) erudite comments.

    As you know, I favour the parametric oscillation action - a more commonly apprehended example of which worth the study, is the action of a swing and the method used to propel it ever higher, until, as in that well-known sport appropriated by the Estonians (kiiking) , it completes a full circle - in the belief that it can indeed be tamed and induced into providing the necessary configuration to replicate Bessler's wheel. .

    That's the plan!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  5. [Sorry about the above misfire.]

    When and where possible it is my pleasure always and, thank you.

    I was not aware that it's application was a thing coming to us compliments of the Eestis. This becomes more interesting to me if only because I collect the postage stamps of the Baltic States.

    I shall investigate parametricism as it applies to oscillating actions.

    (With every day that comes and passes, there is some new, other thing to be learnt.)

    Whether done by kiiking or, by appropriation of energy from one side and giving to the other (silly sounding, isn't it?), we'll NAIL this sucker sure, John!

    'Tiz only a matter of a bit more time now . . . "any day now" . . .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi John, ever since my computer crashed I have been battling to get on your blog with my little note book computer. I was only able to access Besslerwheel .com.
    I eventually solved it by loading up Firefox.don't ask me why!

    ReplyDelete
  7. After reading this post, and the renewed (if it ever faltered) conviction in parametric oscillation, and having no current strong leads myself, i decided to give the matter a little more attention.

    Previously, the only in-principle asymmetry mechanism i could envision from a swinging action was that which might be accomplished by somehow splitting the force and displacement components from shortening and lengthening swings, and then re-combining them as odd pairs, resulting in a low-force low-displacement swing, and a higher-force, higher displacement swing. The net energy of the system wouldn't have changed, but would be asymmetrically apportioned, yielding a loss or gain as desired.

    But while such component-splitting mechanisms may be found in quantum mechanics (ie. spinons etc.), macroscopic counterparts are apparently no so readily available..

    This is obviously no more an exhaustive assessment of the situation than it is productive. If there were any more promising avenues to the esoterics of swinging, i was clearly missing them..

    So anyway, pondering these matters after reading this blog, i was struck by the ingenious inspiration to actually Google "parametric oscillation", and quite literally, RTFM, courtesy of Wikipedia.

    The very first thing the article emphasised is that parametric oscillation is a time-dependent system. Which is at once kick-yourself obvious, yet also nothing short of revelatory. This, because time-dependence is the de-facto hallmark of a non-conservative system. I've ranted about this recently on the BW forum, as i've been attempting to go back-to-basics and try work through the more abstract perspectives.

    In a nutshell though, time-dependence CAN (but doesn't necessarily) lead to path-dependence. A path dependent interaction would involve a closed-path trajectory around a given field, that yielded a non-zero net energy - ie. basically dropping a brick when it's heavier, and retrieving it when it's lighter.

    And with this simple classification now recognised, i'm very much more interested in the subject... all that is required is that the time-dependent variable changes automatically (presumably due to the rotation).

    Provided that we don't have to pay for the variable to change, then any subsequent work that it does (or doesn't) perform is thermodynamically decoupled between input and output strokes, ie. not subject to a Noether symmetry, or classical conservation of energy. Not to put too fine a point on it, even if we have to pay something to effect the change, it doesn't necessarily follow that the cost will be in any way equitable - we might have to input a lot of energy in order to 'destroy' a much smaller quantity, but likewise, a small input could conceivably result in a much greater output.

    So i went back to MT and browsed through every mechanism, keeping an eye out for anything that might suggest a freely-alternating component to a parametric oscillation in a rotating frame... and i have to say that i've come away with a whole bunch of new questions and ideas to try out... all involving swings, interacting with a variety of other elements...

    I haven't seen any theoretical asymmetries yet, but i know what i'm looking for and i'll recognise it when i see it. The key filter i'm applying to everything i consider is the 4:1 asymmetry Bessler alludes to in the Apologia - ie. a freely-alternating variable that allows a swinging action to lift 4x more than dropped.

    So YES you probably have said too much already... if i'm not quite hot on your heels, i'm barking up the same tree so if this leads anywhere, you'd better get a wriggle on.. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. John, there must be thousands and thousands of design possibilities by taking a part or two and combining them with a part or two from another illustration . Any new design will not be proof that it was Bessler's design. You will need to match ALL the clues and not just some.

    ReplyDelete
  9. jso, you're probably right there must be thousands of permutations to be found among all the drawings, however passing them through the filter of the principle which I found, I can tell you that there are not that many. I am certain that I have half the mechanism and the rest I am working on, bearing in mind that whatever it does it has to relate to the basic principle I am 100 per cent certain lies at the root of Bessler's wheel.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  10. JSO,...does it really that matter whether it is the same design so long as it does the job?!

    ReplyDelete
  11. It only matters if someone claims it to be. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. If mine works it will be the same as Bessler's and although I see your point Trevor, I think you are assuming that there are several ways to achieve success and yet if I'm right there is one particular principle which has to be involved in a successful wheel ,and that limits the number of different ways avail;able.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes John,...I agree and is it not possible that this same principle can be used in different ways to accomplish PM.
      Did not Bessler himself say that one of his wheel worked used different principle or configuration.
      Just a thought.

      Delete
  13. Trevor, why is it not possible to use one principle in different ways?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry JSO,...that is meant to be a question, I left out the question mark.
      I do believe it could be used in more than one configuration.

      Delete
  14. After all, you are using one principle in your build, yet you keep making changes and improvements.

    ReplyDelete

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

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