Saturday, 28 June 2014

Bessler's weight-driven wheel

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

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,’.

25 comments:

  1. John, as for myself I cannot find anything in what you have said above to be seeming not-so or questionable, even, that is excepting for "So we can see that gravity causes the weights to move into a position which causes the wheel to overbalance."

    It seems that it does not necessarily follow that it is gravity that is the cause. Yes, the weight pairs to move into a new position thereby producing imbalance. I remember that in one of the MT's he stated explicitly that this was being done within the device illustrated but that 'nothing of the prime mover being shown' or words to that precise effect.

    Whether done by internal combustion engine, electromagnet (or permanent magnet) or gravity, some thing must produce the right amount of impetus in order to LIFT the weight pair so as to cause rotatory motion by imbalance. I use the term lift because that is exactly what must occur for any imbalance to predominate on one side and then repeat.

    The report that Karl was to have exclaimed surprise that no one had 'thought of it before' might easily be imagined to have applied most handily when he could have seen a lodestone being used as a prime mover. No?

    I know. This is ' heresy ' to all Gravity Only partisans but, to-date there have been no indications what ever of any extra energy other than that potential is to be coming from gravity. None. (I beg to be corrected here.)

    I believe It not illogical for some to suggest that mineral magnetism might have been that prime moving energizing (energising) source.

    (Of course what would have worked for sure in theory, was the use of pitchblende in leaden cups which would have created a constant unidirectional force by atomic action but, it seems to me as though it would have been mightily weak indeed. Over at BWF search for "atomos".)

    Would it not be a nice swift kick in the butt to find out that Bessler had predated W.W. Gary's work in the U.S. by some 150 years? This is not an outrageous suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...excepting for 'So we can see that gravity causes the weights to move into a position which causes the wheel to overbalance.'"

      Yes, sometimes when writing thoughts, conclusions flow from what is in my mind, but not on paper so-to-speak, James! I meant that if the weights move on earth but not in space then it would appear that gravity moved them.

      Ah yes, the lifting of the weights is what has defeated us in history, but not any more, or so I believe. I shall know soon and I hope I'm right!

      JC

      Delete
  2. A special material is needed, which could be magnets.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, John. I tried emailing you several days ago and got no response. Not sure if you're just overwhelmed with email or if there's a problem with your account. Another correspondent of mine suggested that I check out your blog, so I decided to finally take a look. Seems like a very informative blog and it's nice to see that you are still actively chasing the wheel. I also liked your interview for "Vice" magazine (what a name!) which should motivate entry level wheel builders to consider Bessler's inventions. I, too, am still active with my wheel research despite recent health issues. It's going to take me awhile to read back through your previous blogs. I recently came across an article by a fellow named "Jenkins" which gave me a few new insights into Bessler (the link to it's pdf is: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097v2.pdf). Of course, I can not agree with his conclusion that Bessler was just a con man who fooled Carl with a clever hoax. No way!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ken. Good of you to drop in, my apologies, life has been somewhat frenetic of late. There's no problem with my account and I'll reply to your email asap.

      JC



      Delete
  4. Same here John, good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's worth pointing out that the Gravity Pulse Motor

    http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=160

    depends on falling weight but does not involve overbalance. On the contrary. It is by balancing the compound pendulum to form a balanced wheel that the simple pendulum weight is able to return to its start position, to reset in other words.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi John,
    had some computer trouble for a while, got a new one now.
    How about an apparent lack of gravity to turn the wheel ?
    Take a see-saw with a bar stool at each end, and have two people (weights) of equal weight stand one on each stool.
    One person steps off the stool, the lack of weight on one end, causes the other end to lower.
    The lowering of one end causes the wheel to turn a fraction, bringing the next see-saw into position.
    The landing of the person onto the beam balances the original see-saw after the initial jolt, and the position on the top of the stool is reset as the wheel turns.
    The stampers on the outside of the wheel may be the person (weight) that steps off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't thought that through but it sounds quite ingenious. Both the Milkovic and the initial RAR - and for that matter the GPM have a phase where a weight is rested - where gravity on one side in neutralised, Mmm....

      Delete
    2. Hi Frank,
      how about adding another dimension to my idea?
      Instead of bar stools, copper tubes are used, and the falling weights are magnets.
      Because of Lenz's law, the weight will fall slower, maybe allowing the wheel to turn further.

      Delete
  7. John, as you may remember, I spent several years trying to perfect a permanent magnet motor when I started my pm research decades ago. I eventually gave up and began working solely on Bessler's wheels because I found their history more appealing. However, here's a very interesting little video I recently came across about a retired Turkish police officer who did not give up. In only two years time he came up with the device being demonstrated in this video to a group of skeptical engineers. It's some sort of magnetic turbine that uses magnetic repulsive forces acting on a central rotor for its motion. Its power output is amazing. If this device is not a hoax, then, because of its compact size, this invention (yes, it's patented) could make Bessler's wheels obsolete! I'll be following this one closely since it shows that an over unity device is possible.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHW6b1aFPfU

    ReplyDelete
  8. John & all,
    have you seen the youtube video of the Visual Education Project's model of the Meresberg wheel ?
    It's at Bessler Wheel, Movimento Perpétuo
    Beautiful ! (though obviously faked)

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We see that Behrendt has now reappeared as if come back from The Dead.

    Why?

    Among other things to wit he has informed us that "John, as you may remember, I spent several years trying to perfect a permanent magnet motor when I started my pm research decades ago. I eventually gave up and . . ."

    Although I do not remember this myself, I can on both counts believe what he has said.

    I viewed the linked-by-Behrendt YouTube presentation covering the Yildiz device, and found it much like many of it's predecessors from the past, and wonder if this newest of the kind will also be 'here today and gone tomorrow' ? My guess is, likely-so.

    The ever sterling Sterling D. Allan of PesWiki has several articles covering the Yildiz motor. They may be seen here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:Magnet_Motors

    Like our own JC, Allen also is the consummate gentleman and indefatigable worker but, as to Behrendt and his newly-noted presence here, THE question remains: Why?

    James

    "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the links to the Yildiz motor, James. I will read all of them as soon as I can. I wouldn't bet on his device being "here today and gone tomorrow". This one seems much different to me. I'm impressed that, after his demonstrations, he proceeds to dissemble the device so that its interior components can be inspected. Bessler never did anything like that!

      Delete
    2. A brief look in forums other than peswiki reveal that some wires were found where they shouldn't have been and the whole story has gone quiet just like Steorn did.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Interesting, John. The accounts I've read so far say that when the motor is dissembled no batteries or wiring are discovered, only a lot of expensive rare earth alloy permanent magnets (the strongest I ever worked with were the "Alnico" type which are far less powerful). I guess it is possible that this could be a scam intended to rip off investors. But, Yildiz does have a published patent that discloses the motor's operative principle. If it's genuine, then others should be able to successfully duplicate it. Meanwhile, it would be nice if he would allow one of the engineering schools he gives demonstrations at to take custody of the device and dissemble and examine it for themselves. That should eliminate the possibility of a hoax. Meanwhile, I still remain impressed by what I've seen. His device in the video is obviously putting power out in the range of hundreds of watts and does it for an extensive amount of time. Ordinarily, you'd need something like several automobile starter batteries to provide that amount of energy and his motor is fairly compact.

      Delete
    4. The yildiz motor, if it does run it runs of magnet's. Would that be class as perpetual motion? Only the wheel runs off gravity and weights, but is classed as perpetual motion.

      Delete
    5. It would seem that the perfectly pertinent question "why?" (posed twice) is not to be answered.

      Very well. Par for that old worn course it is . . .

      Whether the Yildiz device is in and of itself a dissemblance actually or not (assembled or not), as to these we suppose that Time will tell. (Usually, if there is enough of it passed, it doesn't disappoint.)

      It is dreary spectacle indeed, the long parade now of over-built flashily machined mini-monstrosities that appear, and then do the reverse in fair time. When, if ever, is just ONE of them to WORK?

      Also, why are none seemingly ever to be long-time-tested, as Bessler did his wheel for so long?

      (Might it be that the magnets just give-out of all their stored energy and die? That would be a fair question and the true answer, I think, suggests itself.)

      When watching the linked YouTube demo, I noticed the huge volume of truly ugly noise that the monster put out. Such is indicative of energy wastage sure. It was as if the inner works were undergoing some mechanical twisting madness, and screaming in torment on account. Not good.

      That is interesting, John. Wires, huh? Gees!

      Sterling Allan must be one of the most patient men in the world. It is obvious that he is imbued greatly with faith-capacity which, in these super-cynical hideous days, is as rare as it is impressive.

      James

      "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann

      Delete
    6. The more I look into the Yildiz motor, the more impressed I remain. He has actually been working on the problem for 33 years and, although it took him 2 years to build his first working model, he's had it operational for about 15 years now. I found another video he posted late last year that shows designs for other similar permanent magnet only type motors. One of them is supposed to output 5 kilowatts! That's a lot of power and beginning to approach what would be needed to power a home.

      I also found a Pakistani competitor of Yildiz that seems to be using a similar though more compact design. His device is putting out 3.5 kW or so he claims. Check out the video of it at:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yodY1jH5j-I

      I'm a bit suspicious of this invention, however. It's certainly possible to fake this demonstration by using an electrically powered motor (in the white case) to run the alleged permanent magnet motor while claiming it is a generator that powers the heating coils. The wiring for the electric motor would be carefully hidden under the sheet of plywood the device is mounted on.

      Delete
  11. Here's a question for someone far cleverer than me !
    While trying to make my see-saw idea more Bessler like, I thought of this.
    The weights are fixed to lazy-tongs, one side hanging down, extending the tong, and allowing its foot to lock in position.
    The weight on the other side will be up, still in its locked position, when it gets to the correct position, its own weight releases the lock, and the tong collapses.
    Now the question is, will the collapsing tong still exert the same pressure, or will some be expended outward, making one side lighter than the other ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. STEVO, you waited too long to ask it.

      John has pulled up the page and all just disappears. (Perfect for when things get too hot or dull.)

      As for myself, in regarding it I've not a clue. It seems a query worthy of someone's considered answer.

      (If you are careful and present it just right, it might be re-fitted into his newest topic somehow, I don't know.)

      James

      "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann

      Delete
  12. Steve, if I may? If the tongs collapse does not alter it's average distance from vertical centreline of the hub, then there will be no weight change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for answering all the way down here Trevor !
      The idea was to keep the weights balanced after the collapse, but the absence of weight during the collapse caused the difference.
      Like two people standing on stools on a see-saw , one steps off, and while he's descending the other end goes down.

      Delete

Johann Bessler’s Legacies.

Bessler’s wheel is one obvious legacy and although there are some who believe that it’s potential power output is too limited to be of pract...