Bessler's weight-driven wheel

Welcome to those who have dropped by, following the Vice magazine article, you can read it again at

 http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/has-this-british-engineer-discovered-the-secret-to-infinite-energy

Having spent a lot of the last 40 years researching the documented history of Johann Bessler I have found and published enough circumstantial evidence to prove, if this was a court of law, that Bessler's claims were genuine and he was not a fraudster.  There is just one obstacle in the way of complete vindication and that is the convention that gravity cannot be used as a source of energy.  I have no argument with that viewpoint but there must obviously be an answer that encompasses both positions and I believe I have found it.

To find the answer we must first reduce the component parts of the puzzle to their most basic level.  First we should consider what Bessler said about the internal parts of the wheel,  "In Das Triumphans", he stated that, "these weights are themselves the Perpetual Motion device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force, (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."  Baron von Fischer, who examined the wheel for a considerable length of time described hearing "the sound of about eight weights landing on the side toward which the wheel turned".  We can conclude that there are weights and they move within the wheel.

The presence of moving weights certainly implies that gravity was a necessary adjunct to the rotation of the wheel, but does that indicate that gravity was the energy source?  Not necessarily, but obviously if the machine were taken away from earth's gravitational pull, the weights would not move therefore we must assume that it was a vital ingredient.

Reducing the parts of an automobile engine to their most basic part can help understand the solution.  The final act before any movement of the piston, is the explosion of a gasoline/air mixture in the combustion chamber.  This is what actually moves the piston and thus the crankshaft.  The petrol provides the means to cause an explosion, along with air and a spark.  In this case the piston is analogous to the weights.  Each is the actual moving part and, in the case of the piston, it is enabled to move by an explosion; and  gravity enables the weights to move.

Though we may call it a gasoline engine it's really an internal combustion engine which could in theory be fed by any combustible fuel.  In the same way, the weights which overbalance the wheel by becoming, as Bessler put it, 'away from the centre of gravity', could in theory be driven outwards by a piston, so the weight is moved by the piston instead of gravity, or it could be moved by an electric solenoid, both systems could be made to work, in theory, and yet the wheel would still turn under the influence of gravity, because the piston had thrown the wheel out of balance, by moving the weights.

So we can see that gravity causes the weights to move into a position which causes the wheel to overbalance.  We also see that other methods might be used to move the weights and the wheel would still overbalance, so there is no reason why we cannot have a weight-driven wheel...so far.

In the auto engine the piston position has to be reversed in order to fire again, and so too, do the weights in Bessler's wheel.  He solved that problem and was able, by finding the correct configuration, to have the weights move inwards and outwards at the right time.  He showed how to achieve this in one of his 150 or so drawings, but at this point I prefer not to reveal which.  I hope to finish the current test model soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

My interview with Vice Magazine.

I was asked if I would do a telephone interview last Tuesday with a free-lance journalist for Vice magazine!  I immediately conjured up images of the kind of magazine it might be, but thought, 'hell, any publicity is good publicity!' 

As it happens it isn't that kind at all. It has a readership of 100,000 plus, per month in the UK and over a million world-wide.  The actual interview took about 45 minutes and yet you could read the article in five minutes; obviously it was hugely abbreviated and, as a writer myself, I understand the rigours journalists are required to adhere to, keep it short, succinct and sensationalise anything that needs it. But that headline I shall have to live with!  I only responded to the question, 'do you believe you have the solution?', with 'yes, of course and I am building a wheel to prove it,' which is what I've been doing for most of my life, so far without success.  Having said that I have made great strides forward in understanding how it would be possible, so the answer is correct, I do believe I have the solution and I expect to prove it very shortly,

I was amused to learn the following, from one comment about the article, and I quote:

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist, although the general concept is much older. The observation has also been called "Davis' law", or just the "journalistic principle". In the field of particle physics, the concept has been referred to as Hinchliffe's Rule.

Betteridge explained the concept in a February 2009 article:

 This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no". The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.

Although the interview has been greatly abbreviated, there is nothing there that I didn't say, but it is amazing, when you read your own words, how you cannot help wishing you could have another go at saying what you meant!  Any way I'm pleased overall with what was said and if it can bring more people to believe that Bessler was genuine then that is good.  This magazine is largely read by the younger generation and there are too many of us oldies stil trying to solve this puzzle and fresh younger views can only help to reach the answer to this enduring puzzle..

A German publisher is going to publish my original book in German, hopefully in October and this article fits in quite well with that.  I note that there is a German version of the magazine and perhaps they will include me in it? 

Finally, I was amazed to see that the very first comment on the article was a reference to Walter White, otherwise known as Heisenberg in the TV series 'Breaking Bad'.  My family have been referring to me as Heisenberg ever since we all saw the series - and sadly, I've got a Heisenberg T shirt!  I always thought the resemblance was minimla but obviously there is more to this than meets the eye., but I'm not sure that Bryan Cranston (who plays Heisenberg) would be as flattered as I am by the suggested similarity.

He looks a lot meaner than I do!

One more thing, the pictures of Bessler which you can see in the background of the a photo of my workshop are produced by my long time friend, ovyyus at http://www.orffyre.com./

You read the magazine article at

 http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/has-this-british-engineer-discovered-the-secret-to-infinite-energy

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Has the Time Come to Ditch the Search for an Additional Force?

Preface to today's blog

 I have considered the following points, for several months but until now, have settled for merely stating my opinion rather than discussig the point.   Lack of space necessitates brevity so the examples are limited but will hopefully be sufficient to sway some of you to my point of view.

After all this time one would think that some progress would have been made towards solving Bessler's wheel.  I know there has always been a strong bias among those who believe in him, that his machine required some additional force to assist the weights to overcome their final hurdle and complete a full circle.  The reason for this bias lies, of course, in the strongly held conviction that gravity alone, cannot achieve this.

Those of us who take Bessler's words as true, and believe that there was no additional force necessary, are undoubtedly in the minority.  Yet the sheer lack of progress in identifying the additional force seems to me to prove that it is less likely to lead to a solution than to stick with Bessler's words -  and work on the assumption that no additional force is required.  All available forces have been considered and nothing has worked.  So where do we go next?

I have described Bessler's wheel in the past as a gravity wheel, this was wrong; it does not run on gravity; no more than my car runs on petrol, diesel or gasoline. What does that mean? We all blithely talk about autos and their gasoline engines for instance, but even though we call it a fuel, actually it's just a liquid with some useful properties.  We fill the tank and then it is drawn through the fuel pipe and into the combustion chamber - after being mixed with air - and ignited.  The subsequent explosion leading to a rapid expansion of gases, drives a piston down or upwards as required and this causes the first real movement, and the crankshaft turns.  This was originally termed an internal combustion engine and the fuel used to create the explosion could be almost any combustible material. Denis Papin and Christian Huygens in 1680 used gunpowder to create the explosion in a gunpowder engine consisting of a vertical tube containing a piston.

A steam engine relies on coal, which has to be burned, to heat water, to produce steam which is another rapidly expanding gas, and that thrusts a piston up, or down, another example of the first real movement.  Coal is just fossilized trees and is simply a fuel burnt to heat the water to create the expanding steam, but it does not directly fuel the engine.

The electricity we use is generated by steam turbines using water heated by burning coal, and now nuclear fission, but the basic concept is very simple and not dissimilar to that used by James Watt in his steam engine. 

If, for the sake of argument, we leave aside all the life on this planet, nature has only two ways to generate movement; one way is through heat, and the other is gravity.  Nature generates heat in a number of ways, chiefly from the sun warming the planet and from volcanic action.  The subsequent temperature variations can lead eventually to hurricanes, typhoons and tornadoes.  The temperature variations can have odd effects; some rocks in deserts appear to move of themselves but it is due to intense heat during the day and very cold nights, expansion and contraction plus gravity, makes them move.

I know there are some out there who think Bessler may have designed a machine that ran on ambient temperature changes.  As a retired engineer I feel certain that you could never create a wheel using such technology, which operated at the speed Bessler's did, nor start up so quickly, and not with that much power, 300 years ago.  So we are left with nature's only other motion instigator - gravity.

So far, I have focused on the final step which was the moment of movement, but the previous step was what caused the movement.  There is a common denominator in the descriptions of the above engines; they all require an input of heat to generate the first movement.  Should we be looking for a solution to Bessler's wheel using heat?

It may appear that I have proved that Bessler had to have used heat of some sort to generate rotation in his wheel, because the alternative is said to be impossible - but - nature has both solutions available to her and if you think about the moving rocks in the desert, they used temperature variation and gravity to move themselves.    There are many examples of gravity operating in nature.  Rock falls, water falls, rain, floods, land slides and avalanches, the tides both during and away from the full moon; and it has been said that the solution, if it exists, will be found in nature- and - I am utterly convinced that Bessler didn't use temperature variation, or we would have had reports of burning smells, smoke, heat etc, accompanying each demonstration. 

             

We have  tinkered at the edge of this virgin technology, using gravity in watermills, and weight-driven clocks, for example but no one has given a hard, fresh and new look at why we think we cannot  build a continuously turning wheel, as Bessler did..  Rather than looking at each possibility, the world of science and engineering have repeated parrot-fashion the old, old story that gravity is not a source of energy and therefore Bessler's wheel was a fake.  I have news for you, gasoline does not provide the energy for an auto engine, heat does, generated by burning the fuel which is stored in the tank.  Gravity does not provide the energy for Bessler's wheel, the weights do.  Gasoline enables the heat to be produced to move the piston, and gravity enables the weights to move and overbalance the wheel.

It is my belief that, like gasoline, coal and oil which each form part of a series of steps, gravity will prove to be but one step in the process of finding a way to manipulate weights to create continuous rotation in a wheel, just as Bessler did, more than 300 years ago.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Pondering on Preponderance and Premature Presumptions.

There seems to be a problem. Some people, myself included, believe that Bessler's wheel required the presence of gravity to work and have, somewhat confusingly suggested that it was a gravity-wheel.  But the consensus is that gravity cannot be a energy source for the wheel.  Bessler seemed to suggest that it was, so someone is wrong.  Gravity is still not completely understood. We can describe what it does and how it effects us and from this we have, historically, deduced that it cannot be an energy source.

However, you can read what you like into Bessler's words but for me there is one clear message, gravity was an essential ingredient for the rotation of his wheel, or to put it another way, without it, he had nothing.  He also stated, in my opinion, quite clearly that no other force was required to turn his wheel - other than an imbalance he generated with his moving weights.  So how can we reconcile this with the belief that gravity cannot be an energy source?

I have often used an analogy which likens the wind to gravity and despite stressing that I was only applying the analogy to the actual interface between the wind and a windmill, and the force of gravity and some weights, many have pointed out the reason for the wind can be traced back to the sun's effect on earth.  The energy source was not relevant to the analogy. The same reasoning applied to my analogy to a stream of water; again I only pointed to the actual interface between a stream of water and a propeller screw but again the source of the stream was offered to refute the analogy.  Those who are aware of the late Eric Laithwaite (Gyroscopes and linear motor) will probably recall his employment of analogies in order to understand things in a more coherent way.  I use them a lot to try to get to the heart of the problem. My point was that a force or stream or thrust was applied to rotatable surface when it was completely submerged within that force, stream or thrust and yet in all three cases the force was a conservative (or continuous) one and therefore apparently inaccessible as an energy source.

Curiously I realised belatedly, that the wind and gravity move in opposite directions.  The wind moves because the air molecules of which it is composed tend to move from higher pressure areas to lower ones.  One can conclude that the higher pressure areas contain more tightly packed molecules seeking a lower pressure where they can expand because they have become warmer.  Gravity on the other hand, causes mass which is also composed of molecules, to be attracted to other larger and denser masses and the larger the mass the more powerful the attraction.  One could assume that the larger the mass the more condensed the molecules might become and they respond to what Newton 'call action at a distance' and are driven to join the larger masses to add to their overall density. and to the strength of the attraction.

So wind molecules seek lower pressure and under gravity mass molecules seek higher pressure.  But the mechanics that causes objects of mass to move towards each other, and towards larger ones, is invisible to us.  Magnetism is only discerned with the naked eye with, for example, the iron filings demonstration.  Gravity too cannot be seen but its actions are obvious.  The moving molecules in the wind only react to pressure changes.. Pressure changes occur when there is warmer air present, due to the sun's heat. Warm air rises  because it is less dense than colder air and since both are effected by gravity, the warmer air  rises above the colder air where it can expand.

The actual substance (for want of a better word) which acts at a distance to attract objects of mass, is not the source of energy and I have never thought that it was.  No, it is the action of the weights when moved by gravity which in my opinion can provide the energy to turn the wheel.  Gravity is merely the enabler in the same way that the pressure variations in the air, which cannot of themselves provide energy, do cause the wind to blow and it is the resultant wind which provides the energy to turn the windmill.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.