Saturday, 6 September 2014

Helmholtz's Assumption about Perpetual Motion is due for correction.

After more than 300 years of trying and failing, one might be forgiven for thinking that we who believe in Bessler must be mistaken.  But for myself I have doubt whatsoever that he did what he said he did and that is that he built a wheel which rotated continuously powered by the force of gravity.

I'm not alone; there are hundreds of people around the world who believe the legend and many of whom continue to experiment with different mechanical configurations each designed to induce a continuous overbalancing which will cause the wheel to rotate for as long as it remains within the field/force of gravity.

Consider if this was a court of law.  There is an abundance of circumstantial evidence supporting the contention that Bessler told the truth - that his wheel was genuine.  In addition we have the evidence of an eyewitness to the internal workings of the wheel, who verified Bessler's claims; a witness of unimpeachable reputation moreover.  Not a single shred of evidence that he was a fake, other than the lies of a servant who had already served two prison sentences for telling lies about a previous employer and was about to be dismissed from her current employment.  A jury would, at the very least, come to the conclusion that the charge was unproven and he would have been released without further charge.

If you seek an explanation for the continued assertion that his wheel was impossible, then you need look no further than the work of  Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894).  Having graduated as a Doctor of Medicine, this 26 year old youth with no training or experience in either physics or, for that matter, little in medicine either, conjured up his famous conjecture which has formed the corner stone of  scientific belief with regard to the Law of Conservation of energy ever since.  As is common today his paper was reviewed by his peers - and rejected for being too speculative!  Disregarding this setback, Helmholtz turned instead to a fringe meeting of the Berlin Physical Society where he delivered his paper as a speech in 1847.

His fundamental explanation for the impossibility of perpetual motion machines went something like this;  'no-one has ever built a perpetual motion machine, therefore there must be a law of conservation of energy that forbids such machines. If an inventor comes along claiming to have constructed such a machine, he must be mistaken and can safely be ignored because the law of conservation of energy shows them to be impossible!'  But if such a machine were to materialise it would invalidate his argument.

 Helmholtz's circular reasoning defies logic and should have been dismissed as nothing but hot air 300 years ago and yet we are still hidebound by a tradition of fear of peer pressure where the peer group encourages those who might disagree to change their views to become members of the group, and nothing has changed .

Such a paper would not even be accepted for review in today's competitive world and yet here we are striving to prove Bessler's wheel did work and we are stymied by the existence of a nonsensical argument made by a young man barely out of medical school three hundred years ago. (Thanks to Scott Ellis of besslerwheel forum for above information)

I think that Helmholtz's paper on PM was initially disregarded as the work of an enthusiastic amateur with little experience in the world of science, however this view was probably rectified by his subsequent work in medicine.  Here is a quote from a paper by Gerald Westheimer of  the Division of Neurobiology at University of California:- 'No single person, before or since, contributed more to the knowledge of the human sensory apparatus than Hermann Helmholtz, and throughout his career he kept concerning himself with questions of the origin of our visual experiences. He first broached the subject in an 1854 lecture, as a 34-year-old beginning professor of physiology in Konigsberg, and returned to it in a variety of settings till almost the last essay he wroteduring the year of his death in 1894.'  

This blind acceptance of everything an accredited scientists pontificates upon is a common occurrence today.  Often, despite his claim to fame having been given a rapturous reception the frequent subsequent discovery that some of his work was wrong, inaccurate or an example of self-aggrandizement happens often enough to make us cautious about such claims.  This is often regarded as a necessary step in the evolution of scientific discovery, when corrections are continually applied to our knowledge of the world.  In this case the corrections is taking far longer than usual.

Just because we have not succeeded yet does not preclude the possibility that one or more of us will do so soon. More progress has been achieved in the last five years than in the previous 300 and I am confident that the breakthrough is just around the corner.




  1. Burke's Law,
    energy can neither be created or destroyed, but it can be utilised !
    Even before Helmholzt the argument was the same, just check out Chamber's Cyclopaedia of 1728.
    It's online.

    1. Sorry Stevo, never heard of it and completely unable to find it in Chambers Cyclopaedia.


    2. John,
      a slight faux pas, Burke's Law was a word play on my surname, and the old t.v. show !
      The law itself is pataphysical on my part.

      The argument against P.M. is in the Cyclopedia, under " Motion", I think.

    3. The entry is under Perpetual, vol.2 pgs. 791-792.

  2. Helmholzt's argument against pm really boils down to "pm can not be, therefore any device claimed to be pm is not." The "pm can not be" part is based on a pure assumption that, since no one seemed to be building working pm machines, this means such machines can not be built because, supposedly, they violate some fundamental law of the universe. I suspect that Helmholzt was not aware of Bessler's wheels. If he had been, he might never have advanced his fallacious conjecture. One must, imo, be very wary of ivory tower philosophers and scientists who "prove" pm is impossible. Such types once "proved" that the Sun should have burned itself out after a few millions of years, man would never fly in a heavier than air craft, and that x rays were a hoax. But, still, the burden of proof that pm is possible rests solely with those making the claim that it is possible. Claiming it must be possible because a device passed some tests while briefly examined or because some "witness of unimpeachable reputation" says so is not sufficient. It will only be possible when anyone with the skills can follow a description of a perpetual motion device and build a working physical model from it and the more that do that, the better. That, unfortunately, has not happened yet, but hopefully will some time soon.

    1. Ken I do realise that 'because some "witness of unimpeachable reputation" says so is not sufficient', and if you had taken the comment in context you would have realised that I was supposing that the evidence against Bessler would not stand up on a court of law.


    2. Agreed that the charges against Bessler would not have stood up in court. And, of course, being found "not guilty" which automatically happens when a case is dismissed does not necessarily mean that the person is truly "innocent". All "not guilty" means is that there is not enough proof to find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Unfortunately, the dismissal of the charges against Bessler is not, by itself, sufficient to prove his wheels were genuine. Only when Bessler's design is taken and verified by the construction of working replicas by others can he be considered to be truly innocent. I continue to work toward that goal. We "believers" tend to warn against the "blind acceptance" of the skeptics denial of pm reality. But, I think we also have to be careful that in our zeal to believe we do not also blindly accept that Bessler's wheels had to be genuine. If we are completely honest about the matter, we have to admit that we're not really to the point yet of being able to say that they were definitely genuine. All I can honestly say is that I believe that they were most probably genuine. I look forward to the day of being able to say they were definitely genuine.

  3. Don't forget Joule - he tried rolling various weights down various ramps, and noted that only the total vertical distance determined the energy, regardless of the ramp's gradients.

    Classical conservation re-confirmed, replicated, cross-referenced and enshrined in so many fundamental tenets that no single point of attack will yield much ground. Only an easily understood and replicable model will make any headway...

    1. I never saw the reality of Bessler's pm wheels as a violation of the mass-energy conservation law. In fact, I consider their reality as a reaffirmation of that law. But, this is only possible if the weights within the wheel steadily lost mass-energy as they ran and operated outside machinery.

    2. The form of energy in a GPE interation is gravity x mass x height - it's purely classical energy. How could any arrangement of wood and lead precipitate nuclear reactions? What might be the candidate reaction routes? Why wasn't Bessler fried by the gamma emissions? Maybe the lead was just for sheilding? Facetiousness aside, you make a very good observation that mass equivalency must prevail, however i would look to relativistic momentum of the gravitational field mediator - or perhaps the mass mediator - but either way, we'd be looking at converting ambient vacuum potential into thermodynamic energy. In other words, you may well be right that the overall mass of the contraption is depleted over time, however this would be alongside all the other mass in the universe... it wouldn't be possible to measure any change locally.

      Regardless, the energy source must by definition reside in whatever manifests the force performing the excess work - in this case, gravity / mass / spacetime curvature / some carrier particle in the boson fields, or whatever..

  4. "blind acceptance"


    Thanks, John - I'm still chuckling.

    1. Mark,
      I got that one too!
      Believe me Bessler's Wheel was no fake, when I took another look at the Meresburgh Wheel,
      I had an epiphany, the workings are all there in plain sight, no pun intended.

    2. I believe that you believe his wheels were no fakes and so do I. But, belief is not a guarantee of them or anything else for that matter being genuine. I have seen magicians do tricks that were so clever that one would swear that they could actually make objects appear and disappear at will or pass through solid walls. Later, when I researched how the tricks were done, I realized that they were not real. The actual "magic" in a magic show is making the audience believe the impossible is possible. Until we can physically duplicate one of Bessler's wheels all we really have is belief. It's a wonderful of state of mind to have and some will be content to go no further. Knowing, however, that they were real is going to take an enormous amount of effort. After decades of work, I've only scratched the outer surfaces of this mystery. Even if I successfully obtain a trustworthy computer model / simulation that works, others will have to complete the task with a physical construction. Until that point is reached, there is always the possibility, small though I think it is, that Bessler was a con man and his wheels had extremely well hidden power supplies. It's also possible that Count Carl was deceived by whatever Bessler showed him to convince him that Bessler had discovered the secret of pm. It's even possible that Carl was part of the scam for some purpose. Until the wheels are duplicated, these all remain possibilities even though I would consider them highly improbable.

    3. Occams razor, Ken. In the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.


    4. Quite true, John. My only assumption is that his wheels were simple over balanced types that he figured out how to make operational with the very careful use of spring tension. I had a disturbing thought last night. It was that no matter what working design I derive and publish, there really is no way of proving it was the exact same one Bessler used! Even if it seems to match every clue I point out, someone can come along and just say there are probably many more clues there and, if I had them, I would see that my design does not agree with them. In fact, without an authenticated schematic made by Bessler himself, there is really no way of knowing if any design ever presented was really his. I can only hope that whatever I finally derive, if it works, will eventually be accepted by the majority of those interested in Bessler's wheels as being the one he had and used. I won't publish it unless I personally am convinced that it's the one. But, there will always be those who will resist accepting it for reasons they feel are valid. Such is the nature of scientific discovery or, in this case, rediscovery.

  5. Quite wrong Ken...we are confused because we have not understood the true meaning of clues left by bessler...firstly it is very important to realize that there is only one version or design and that is bessler design that'l work...and secondly, it cannot be realized thru computer research...natural thinking for natural discovery is mandatory...

    1. Decoding Bessler's mathematical clues, which are mostly geometrical, is a very tedious and time consuming task. I've been working on them for years and only scratched the surface. Yet, what I now have, I believe, is sufficient to duplicate one of his wheels. Without "computer research" I would not have come to this point of possible near success. With computer modeling / simulation software I've managed to compress a lifetime of work in the shop down to less than a decade. We have to remember that it took Bessler a decade and three hundred attempts to find his working design despite all of his skills as a craftsman. It's quite possible that he was just very, very lucky in finding that design. The average inventor with average luck might not find a working design in a thousand lifetimes! I can't imaging even trying to do so without computer assistance. To me that would be like trying climb to the top of a mountain without arms or legs! Yet, most doing pm research today are doing just that and will eventually either give up or go to their graves without finding success. Trust in the use of computers. I wish I had been able to use them decades earlier, but they were not available then. In fact, I don't think Bessler's secret design had any realistic chance of being found until the present day computer age arrived!

    2. This is where we are making a very great mistake...decoding Bessler's mathematical clues which are mostly geometrical...we should just ignore these clues and stick to the clues in his poem and MT drawings...first of all we should not rely on clues left by Bessler...we should naturally come up with the design by pure imagination work and then compare it with the clues...we should try to find out what makes a weight to go up with less effort...

    3. If it was not for the geometrical clues I've found, then I would probably have nothing right now. I have found the MT drawings to be of limited value (other than perhaps two or three drawings hinting which direction to head in for a solution) and I have found his poem to be of no value whatsoever. But, that's just me. Others may think they have tremendous important and I wish them well with that approach. I am very happy with the approach I am taking and feel I'm closer to a real solution than ever before.

  6. Hear, Hear, Suresh,
    there is a blueprint hidden in plain sight, if I am right, it will be blindingly obvious to everyone, and leave no doubt it's Bessler's design.

  7. We don't need to know how Bessler did it. All we need to do is to show it's possible. If we show that what Bessler claims is possible then any scientific jury will accept his claim is valid beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Keenie showed one can harness gravity using push instead of pull.

    The historical evidence that the Keenie wheel worked is much weaker than the historical evidence that the Bessler wheel worked, admittedly - but at least we do have the remains of Keenie's wheel to work with.

    That's why I have concentrated on understanding why it worked and have reduced the problem to a single mechanism, that of the Gravity Pulse Motor. I believe I can show that an inverse of this mechanism (basically a redesign of the Milkovic Pendulum) will give us a simple form of the Bessler Wheel.

    1. Frank,
      I like the Keenie Wheel too, but because Bessler's Wheel is at the forefront, I can't quite see it's blueprint as easily.
      The "vibe" I do get though is, that it works in a similar way.
      How so ?
      The workings of Bessler's Wheel is in 2 halves, 1/2 heavy, 1/2 light, split left / right.
      Keenies Wheel is similar, the more weights are on one side, but instead of being left / right split,
      the non-overbalancing weights are on the outer ring waiting their turn to exchange places at the right time.
      With the same "inner eye" I can almost see it's workings, but it's just not in focus yet !

  8. Stevo,
    The Keenie does not depend on overbalance.

    It depends on an asymmetric pulse of energy.

    Over balance is a blind alley which leads nowhere.

    1. Hi Frank,
      I've not really studied the buzzsaw, so I cannot debate the point.
      But if I can beg your indulgence, I'll tell you what I see.
      Feel free to regard it as utter nonsense if you wish, I will not argue.
      If anything is useful, please feel free to use it as you wish.
      I see eight weights on the r/hand inner wheel.
      Three on the outer left, a gap at the bottom.
      The bottom inner weight drops into the empty bottom outer slot.
      The inner wheel turns 1/16th.
      The outer wheel turns 1/8th, at twice the speed.
      The then top outer weight drops into the top inner slot.
      The constantly replenished greater weight on the right of the inner wheel is what causes the wheel to turn.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Hi Michel,
      I am an electrician, and in the past I have worked on some very complicated machinery.
      Most electricians come across a problem, and just dive in without taking time to think, mostly taking guesses.
      I always take my time, study how a machine works, and then devise a logical sequence of tests.
      Five minutes with a pencil and paper, and going through each step at a time always gets results.
      Seeing the solution to Bessler's Wheel was different.
      I was drawing one of my ideas, just doodling really, I put the drawing aside, and didn't think much about it.
      About a week later, I was just musing on the Merseburg Wheel, and I saw the exact same arrangement that I had drawn.
      All it will take now is to build a model to see if I'm delusional, or not !

    4. The wheel loaded with weights was over several hundred pounds if I remember correctly. At a high rate of speed, the flywheel effect could easily drive a narrow sharp blade thru timber.

      What we don't know is if the inventor and land owner had to pause from time to time to allow the wheel to gain momentum. If he did, then overbalance, albeit only a few pounds, could have driven the wheel to the necessary speeds.

    5. Frank,
      just had a further insight, because of the weights transfer time, a "catch and release" mechanism will be necessary.
      Bessler's stampers would be ideal !

    6. Frank,
      that should be nine weights on the r/hand of the inner wheel, 12 to 6 O'clock.
      Counted 16 slots and divided by 2.
      Should have counted.

    7. Frank,
      I've worked out how the weight release ring mechanism operates on the buzzsaw, and the catch release for the whole wheel.
      One thing puzzles me though, I'm not an expert on gearing, but, when the wheel moves, the weight ratio is 2:1, the gear ratio would also be 2:1, would that not negate each other ?

  9. I had another testing session with my design earlier this morning and had partial success! But, it's still only partial and very preliminary. The design I have basically consists of two groups of coordinated levers with their end mounted weights that shift independently of each other and at different rates during each 45 degree segment of drum rotation. These two groups must shift in a very precise relationship to each other if the center of mass of all of the weights is to remain stable on the descending side of the drum as it rotates. So far, one of those groups is doing precisely what the clues say it will and which it must. I must still test the other group and, if that goes well, then the design should work overall. Still days away from knowing for sure. Yes, Bessler's design is "simple"...until you start to see the mechanical details behind it! That simplicity, imo, is only a surface appearance. What was really going on mechanically was very complex and it's obvious to me why it took him ten years and three hundred models to come up with it!

    I have to disagree that, should someone come up with a gravity powered pm wheel, this will prove Bessler was not a fraud. Actually, if does not prove that at all. It would only prove that pm is possible, but that does not necessarily mean that Bessler found a working solution. He could still have been a "mountebank without equal" as Frank Edwards wrote. Also, just because someone today finds a design that works, that does not mean it had to be the same one Bessler used. That would only be the case if there was only one way of constructing a working pm wheel. My hope is to find a design that both works and agrees with a specific set of geometrical clues I've found in the Bessler illustrations. If that happens, there will still be many that will disagree that such agreement exists, but that is okay with me. Ultimately, I am the only one that has to be convinced that I have his design and I'm not the type who is easily convinced of anything! I have to see something that is obviously going way beyond just chance and toward a very high degree of certainty.

    1. 'it took him ten years and three hundred models to come up with it!'....yes...because Bessler was not on the right track till his final model...he was trying out various versions like we are doing is simple alright in every is only that no one had thought of it before...that is why he was too scared that one look inside would give away everything...whoever builds a successful wheel now can be very sure that it is bessler's design because no other design is going to work...and finally, if one lever-weight unit of the system works as per the clues then one can be sure that the rest too will follow the same and the wheel in general will perform well...we shouldn't worry much about the weights keeping its center of mass on the descending side as it is bound to happen automatically...

    2. "whoever builds a successful wheel now can be very sure that it is bessler's design because no other design is going to work"

      Not necessarily. You are making a big assumption here. There could be several different designs that will work and, possibly, Bessler only found the simplest of them. But, what's important, imo, is that he did find one and, if so, that proves it's possible to construct such a machine. Hopefully, if that is so, the design Bessler used can be greatly improved upon so that it will be a useful source of power. Right now a simple water wheel can produce far more power than any of Bessler's ever did. And, all of this only applies to weight driven wheels. There could be many other types of devices that use magnetic or electric fields that are possible. Even though it's been 300 years since Bessler, we are really still in the infancy of this subject. Sometimes I wish I could teleport a physics textbook from the year 2100 AD into the present time so I could take a peek at its chapters. I'd bet one would find a nice big chapter devoted to Bessler and his wheels in there right after the chapters that deal with Mechanics and the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. After that would be a chapter describing the various types of Free Energy devices that had been developed in the last century and which would explain why the subject had been erroneously dismissed by the skeptics until a breakthrough in rediscovering Bessler's wheel design occurred in the early part of the century. I'm sure it would make very interesting reading.

  10. In all of this new little sea of verbiage, supposedly addressing J.C.'s worthy topic, this sentence by VIBRATOR (even though STILL he does not condescend to address my own little low-self) IS KEY

    " Only an easily understood and replicable model will make any headway... "

    The simple purity of it's innate truth, self-asserts way past pain.

    So . . . less time-wasting of the "am I not SO clever?" type blather (at which Behrendt is an undeniably past-master of such tedious, verbal spinnery) and, more creation of tangibles intended as PM's, would be the just-right trick, methinks.

    CHEERS to y'all . . .


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

    1. Thanks James, for pointing out that most of the comments bear little relation to my blogs, however I don't mind because even though there are few comments from the vast majority of those who apparently visit this blog, I like the fact that people can use it for a general discussion of what ever is on their minds a a certain moment. I also receive emails about the comments sometimes, which is good, and the number of those who visit just to read, is encouraging even if they don't comment. So keep it up men!


    2. True James, true,
      but it's a whole lot better than when there were anonymous replies !

    3. Yes, John, it is nice to have a place to come and babble about things Bessler. Thanks for making this possible for us. It's also a nice testament to the effect that Bessler had on future generations of pm wheel seekers. It's 300 years later and we're still taking about his inventions although, sadly, the orthodox world of science has completely dismissed him. I think that will change dramatically in the future when his design is finally revealed and leads to working replicas of his wheels. I am confident that will all happen within our lifetimes.

    4. Um, cheers James? Although i was only stating the obvious. And even then, i disagree with myself - success would only dent common misapprehensions about ultimate conservation, rather than conservation itself.

      Many folks - masses, probably - will exult what they see as the final debunking of cynical know-all science, and the glorious validation of the woo they always believed in, deep down. People who think conservation of energy could ever BE disproven are only a grade above those who dismiss science as "just another form of religion". But they're also probably in the majority..

      However Ken's more on-track than you give him credit for.. the only real revelation will be the final realisation that classical force interactions can be open thermodynamic systems. Bessler's mechanism, once discovered, will be found to operate under any applied force - such as accelerations from a fairground ride, or magnetic force, or electrostatic force. It will be quickly recognised in terms of temporal variance of force between input and output halves of an interaction, causing a simple asymmetry, that everyone everywhere will easily understand. And shortly after that it'll become kick-yourself obvious to all that the energy source resides in whatever force field is applied, and thus by extension that all forces are in fact powered, and thus in other words it is not the total energy of the universe that is constant, but rather its median throughput, in communion with the vacuum.

      But now i'm just adding to the contemptable babble... What i'd rather be doing is simming or building or otherwise evaluating the ideas of Stevo and our esteemed host here Mr C., at least until my own next bout of psychosis kicks in. It's all the damned secrecy that does my nut in. All this tantalizing intrigue and subterfuge. Just gimme something i can knock up in Mecanno or WM2D and let's have done with it, i say...

    5. Vibrator, you bring up an interesting point. In principle, Bessler's wheels should have worked regardless of nature of the forced applied to their weights or, interestingly, regardless of the direction of the force as long as the direction was in the plane of a wheel. Thus, if the axle bearings were closed and firmly secured, the wheel could work if the lead weights were replaced with iron ones that were attracted to a very powerful external magnet. Alternatively, his wheels could have been placed in a centrifuge and they would have worked as the centrifuge was brought up to speed. The point of this is that a gravity field was not necessary to make the wheel's run as long as a suitable force was present that acted on the ends of the drum's levers and tended to pull them in a particular direction in the plane of a wheel.

    6. I totaly agree with you Vibrator, as you said, 'Bessler's mechanism, once discovered, will be found to operate under any applied force - such as accelerations from a fairground ride, or magnetic force, or electrostatic force. It will be quickly recognised in terms of temporal variance of force between input and output halves of an interaction, causing a simple asymmetry, that everyone everywhere will easily understand', I said as much way back in 1996 when I first published my bio of Bessler.

      There is also the possibility of reversing the effect to obtain further uses.


  11. Had another successful partial test of my table top sized one directional wheel (three feet in diameter) this morning, but noticed a strange effect. If I let the wheel start rotation slowly, all is well. But, if I try to start up clockwise rotation faster than about 0.35 rpm my upper half of the drum levers immediately fall over away from the direction of motion and the 10:30 lever in particular can get tangled up in the ropes interconnecting it to its neighboring levers. For a scaled up 12 foot diameter wheel with even more massive weights, this effect should occur at an even lower speed. Now I realize why Bessler had problems when the examiners of his wheels occasionally gave them too hard of a shove when his back was turned and then knocked them "out of balance" and disabled them. As long as it's only a one directional wheel that is allowed to self start itself, there is no problem. But, for a two directional wheel where a starting push is required, it can be a headache if the push causes an initial acceleration that is too great. Fortunately, I've found a simple way to compensate for this nuisance effect by adding additional structures to the wheel which I call "Startup Stabilizers". They work perfectly and, best of all, I've actually found evidence for them in some of the clues Bessler left! However, still much more testing needs to be done in the coming days. If successful, then it's on to a 12 diameter wheel.

  12. ‘my upper half of the drum levers immediately fall over away from the direction of motion....’

    IMO actually, it should not be happening this way especially in an one directional wheel...since you are facing this situation it can be comfortably concluded that something is terribly wrong with your basic design...which further indicates that you are not on the right track...and, consequently, success would be eluding naturally... this could go on and on…hey man, this is no way of achieving bessler wheel…
    The design of one directional wheel mechanism is supposed to be extremely simple and not very complicated as perceived by many... it is self-starting and is supposed to be rotating without any is just that none of us seem to have the proper basic design or a clear understanding of the one directional bessler wheel....we keep facing unsuccessful results and, at the same time, also take others along into disappointment all the time...the question now is how long should one tolerate all this? Is it very much right on our path to take others into confidence and finally, cut a sorry figure later when we face failure...can we keep taking others for a ride like this...who is really interested in such ventures of this kind...
    we could as well start discussing bessler’ s clues instead of narrating such dismal attempts of ours...there is no end to our attempts and take my word it is not going to benefit any of us in any way....just a waste of time....we shouldn't keep testing others’ patience....this is not a time passing site...I suggest that there be some norms...One should be too sure of success if only one has the right design...just by trying out various tricks won't aid us in this venture....we should have the right concept before we could think of building a wheel...what is happening is we are fooling ourselves as well as others...and this is really not a healthy sign...Pls take no offence...

    1. I'm very confident that I have the right design. The problem with Bessler's wheels is that they put all of the mass of their weights near the drum's periphery and at the end of levers. Also, the levers in the upper half of the drum are very delicately counter balanced against each other at all times. When a one directional wheel is given a sudden shove in the direction it is supposed to naturally and more slowly accelerate in, the sudden excessive acceleration of the drum forces it to take off while the weights, due to inertia, tend to stand still. The result is that the drum moves quickly and all the levers can do is swing about their pivots as the counter balancing springs attached to them try to accelerate them so they can catch up with the drum. If a one directional wheel is allowed to more slowly accelerate by itself, this problem does not occur. Fortunately, there is a simple solution, what I call the "startup stabilizer" mechanism, which I've introduced into the design and which I'm very sure Bessler also would have used after he got tired of having to open his wheel's side up in order to untangle a lever that, after it swung too far away from the direction of motion of the drum, had gotten caught up in its interconnecting ropes. Once such a tangling occurs, it would permanently disable the wheel until the problem was corrected. The startup stabilizers serve to block excessive lever swinging motion upon giving a two directional wheel's drum its required initial push to start the wheel moving and these mechanisms function no matter how strong the shove the two directional wheel might initially have been given. When Bessler was demonstrating the Kassel wheel to some representative of a rich guy interested in buying it, it would not be too impressive if the wheel suddenly lost drive just because the person examining it gave it too hard of a starting push. Bessler was always trying to impress prospective buyers with the power of his wheels and a powerful wheel should be able to handle some rough treatment.

  13. Vibe,
    why don't you try a sim on the buzzsaw wheel ?
    My idea for Bessler's wheel is pure speculation, whereas we have 95% of the buzzsaw.
    The missing parts are as follows :-
    The ring that releases the 6 O'clock weight is operated by the weight that drops into the 12 O'clock slot.
    It has 8 barbs that correspond with the 8 outer slots.
    The 12 O'clock weight rolls against the "slope' of the barb, it pushes the ring around, and of course on the bottom, that means the barb retracts, and the 6 O'clock weight is released.
    The ring is mounted on slots, with a spring return.
    When the 6 O'clock weight rolls to the bottom of its slot, it releases a simple catch that holds the wheel when each of the 16 slots reach the 6 O'clock position.
    The barbs are shaped so that the 12 O'clock weight pushes the ring as late as possible, so there is a very slight pause before the 6 O'clock weight is released.
    The wheel holding catch is not released until the 6 O'clock weight is fully in its slot.
    So between each action there is a small, but imperceptible delay.
    The 16 slot inner wheel moves one slot at a time.
    The outer 8 slot wheel moves one slot at a the same time, but of course it has to go twice as far, and twice as fast.
    The barbs retracting from the other weights makes no difference, as their angle of repose keeps them in place.
    Initially the weights are placed 9 in the r/h inner slots 12 to 6 O'clock.
    3 in the l/h outer slots, starting at the one after the 6 O'clock slot.
    Assuming the slots "point up" so that the weights rest at the bottom.
    Hope this makes sense.

    1. A long time ago in a forum far, far away I posted an image of a very accurate computer model of the "Buzzsaw Wheel" (a name I originally gave to it!) that I had made. That model was unworkable. At first glance, the Buzzsaw Wheel looks like it should work since there are always about double the number of descending weights on the inner wheel than are ascending on the outer wheel. Because of this, the outer weights must rise at about double the speed that the inner wheel weights fall which means that, in any time interval, the same number of weights will always rise as will fall. Thus, the amount of energy required to lift those rising weights is always equal to the amount delivered by the falling weights during any time interval and none is left over to do external work. I've seen many other designs that have this same problem even though they have much different configurations and Bessler even has a few of them in MT. It's amazing how much time has been wasted pursuing this futile approach.

  14. OOPS!
    that's 16 barbs corresponding to the 16 slots on the inner wheel.
    Have you tried a sim of my doughnut idea ?

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Right, found your DOughnut idea in the last thread, and if i understand correctly the idea is that each donut has a pentagonal inner surface, and hangs from a pair of radially-aligned pegs, such that when horizontal (at 3 & 9 o'clock) they're hanging equally suspended from both pairs of pegs, but when hanging vertically they're only suspended by the outer peg of each pair of pegs - and their pentagonal inner surface causes them to hang asymmetrically?

      Is that right?

      If so then recall that the force of a hanging weight is applied to the point of application of the weight, regardless of the hanging weight's orientation... If you're still confident however, and i'm mising the point, please elucidate further...?

  15. @Stevo

    I'd be willing to try anything but i must apologise i'm not familiar with the buzzsaw concept. I did a quick Google of "Bessler buzzsaw wheel" and found a page on, however Ken's notes above seem aposite..

    My first question would be, can the buzzsaw concept be reduced to a pair of opposing mechanisms - ie. a balance beam, rather than a fully populated wheel? If not, and a full wheel is required, i could still have a go, if sufficient details are provided.. a sketch of the main principle or something...

    1. Looking closer, it seems the basic weakness of the Buzzsaw design is that the weights need lifting further on the ascending side than the falling work they perform on the descending side? Aside from that it's an ingenious design, but i don't see any gains there..


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...