Monday, 3 November 2014

Success? Do you want Fame & Fortune or Complete Anonymity?

I was reviewing (again!) the options open to anyone who succeeds in recreating Bessler's wheel and this is what I think are the potential pluses and minuses.

So you've finished your version of Bessler's wheel and it works.  Your choices depend on what you are looking for.  Do you want fame and fortune - or just fortune - or would you prefer to just give it away anonymously?  The last one looks the easiest but may prove in practice to be impossible.

Placing a video on YouTube for instance, might seem like a safe way for anonymity but you'd be wrong.  The video would probably go viral worldwide and the media would be in a frenzy to be the first to find the inventor and write about him or her. or film them, interview them etc etc.  They would if necessary, employ hackers to discover everything about you.  Anonymity will not be an option.

By the same token fortune alone would not be an option  either, for the same reasons as before. Fortune without the fame that goes with it, might be difficult to achieve. Of course you might interest a group of philanthropist who might buy the device off you and develop it themselves with or without your input.  That could possibly offer you some kind of protection but it would be impossible to keep the news hounds away from the gates for ever..

So that leaves fame and fortune.  At least you retain some kind of control over what the media say about you and the fortune would certainly be substantial.  That way the media could have their cake, (or should that their pound of flesh?) and go on their way happy in the knowledge that you have given them their due - and been paid for it.

There is one more method that might do if you wish for a little money and complete anonymity and that is to find someone who would take the device off your hands for a small sum of money to be paid as and when it becomes available.  He would receive the fame and fortune and maintain complete confidence about where he obtained the device, possibly taking the credit for it.

All other options such as leasing, renting, patenting etc, all involve the fame part and perhaps the fortune too.  So unless you can take the fame or notoriety give it to someone who does want it.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

16 comments:

  1. Interesting blog topic, John. Assuming that my latest and greatest model wheel works and I do, in fact, truly have "it", then I would be content with merely being credited with the rediscovery and thereafter being allocated my little footnote in the history of science. That, at least, should be safe to assume would happen. Assuming anything beyond that will happen is, imo, pure wishful thinking that will only lead to disappointment. I still don't believe that Bessler's wheels will become a useful power source for the world. Yes, they definitely worked, but one can get far more power out of an array of solar panels than even his giant Kassel wheel. His wheels are, however, important because they graphically demonstrate that it is physically possible to extract the mass associated energy from a cyclically operating machine and make it available to power outside machinery. If that can be done with Bessler's imbalanced wheels, then, most likely, it can be done with other devices as well. As you know, I'm a believer in the Yıldız permanent magnet motor and am impressed by its power output relative to its size. I'm also currently convinced that rare earth permanent magnet motors are the future of self-motive power generation. Bessler's wheels, however, are important for historical reasons and now, with the advent of computers and simulation software, we are the closest to being able to solve them then ever before. I just hope it happens in our lifetimes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Re the "fortune": If I were able to re-create Bessler's wheel, I'd initially offer it for sale, with the following conditions:—

    1. I'd ask the same price as Bessler did, i.e. the modern equivalent of 20,000 early 18th century reichsthalers.

    2. It would be for sale for a limited time only, say two years at most.

    3. Ideally the machine should be opened and its mechanism revealed immediately after purchase. This would avoid any possibility of a purchaser buying an unopened machine and subsequently replacing its mechanism with a fraudulent one, in order to discredit it.

    Re the previous post: See http://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/objections-to-mechanical-perpetual.html for my take on applying the laws of thermodynamics to mechanical perpetual motion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You could publish it anonymously through someone in the press ... or use someone else's Youtube . Or just leave plans for the design on the desk of a capable engineer or inventor .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also given the history of the invention , it being born of a firm concept and not of concrete material and then so named , would it not be a discredit to our mentor to call it anything other than " Perpetual Motion " ? I think John , that in your attempts to " turn people on " to the Bessler myth you have tried to dance around the subject in many ways ... the fact remains if the thing can continue to move until the material of which it is made wares out causing a mechanical dysfunction then it will qualify as " Perpetual Motion " . After all it was good enough for all those who have sought it , praised it or spoke against it in the past . We must hold to the subject matter and settle the argument once and for all .

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do not agree with the first point, John. As for anonymity I am sure, once the solution is published and someone mightier has captured your material, no one cares about the real inventor. Why should the media be interested to find the person who really created the machine? The marvel alone is so exciting that no one cares about the truth behind in the first instance. Later it is absolutely hard to prove who is the one the idea comes from. So the winner is the person able to present the machine the most convincing or being just mightier than others. If I would be the lucky one able to publish a solution I would not do any planning because I cannot believe to control things that will happen after. So I would just put my video on YouTube and see what will happen then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually I agree with you, S.O.P.M. Forget what is the right thing to do, do what suits you without too much planning. Whatever you decide could be right, could be wrong, as long as the design is out there that's all that matters.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Yes, publishing the design is important and no research can be considered completed until and unless it is published. But, I also think it's important that the researcher get some credit to repay him for the effort he made to conduct the research and thereby add to the growing heap of human scientific trivia. Ultimately, I don't expect the world to shake when the design is finally determined and published. It'll have its moment in the sun, mostly on the internet, and then the world will get on to more pressing matters. For example, back in 2012, iirc, they announced that they had discovered the Higgs boson which is critical to understanding dark matter and energy and, supposedly, advances our knowledge of the universe. It's now two years later and the average person on our planet has no idea of the significance of that discovery and neither could he care less. Don't be too surprised when the rediscovery of the Bessler wheel mechanism has the same fate.

      Delete
  6. John,
    I personally have a way to make money from Bessler's Wheel, and not give away the secret.
    Take one acre of my land, close to the wooded area, plenty of trees to hug.
    Build some nice vacation chalets out of sustainable bamboo, while trying not to make it look like the set of The Bridge Over The River Quai.
    Put two wheels in a locked, alarmed, well built outhouse.
    Have one wheel turning ceiling fans in the chalets, the other powering L.E.D. lighting.
    Conduct guided tours of the wheels, allowing just the same amount of inspection as Bessler did.
    Once word got around, the curious eco-tourists will flock in !

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello all, I disagree with Ken, once the wheel is made workable, it would certainly be improved and then scaled. If you had a single direction wheel that is 40' tall with 10 ton weights, say 1000 of them on 100 acres you would have a substantial power plant, once built would be cheap to maintain, gravity is free so far!! Magnet motors are an option but do require a charge every so often to realign the molecules and make it strong again. As far as fame goes, there would be no avoiding it. you would win the Nobel peace prize for engineering and potentially trillions in income, to be mostly given away I'd hope. As far as just putting it out there on the web, and I have said this before, that will slow down dispersal of the idea, a large company is reluctant to use something that it is unsure who owns it, if someone patents it will have a clear path of ownership and companies will jump on board left and right. It sounds noble to give it away but not really practical. As for calling it "Perpetual Motion" that is a horrible idea in my opinion, perpetual motion is and always will be impossible and breaks the laws of physics. This will be highly discrediting to the device and cause big business to shy away. Every engineer and physics professor will denounce it as a fraud, it would be un-patentable and lead to the failure of the device. I like the name G-Wheel.
    But besides all this I really have no opinion. Thanks Alaskabobb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forty foot diameter imbalanced Bessler wheels with huge weights would be technically possible to construct, but their power outputs relative to their masses would, imo, still be too low to justify their construction. Also, there is the problem of the centrifugal forces that would develop inside of such a wheel. They would be tremendous even at the low maximum free running speeds such wheels would have. I'd hate to be living near one of these giants in the event of a structural failure that resulted in the weights being hurled from the wheel! Building the wheel underground is one solution, but then there are the problems of excavating the hole and keeping it from flooding out.

      Nobel Prize? Why would the Nobel committee decide to give someone such a coveted prize for rediscovering someone else's three hundred year old invention??? Imho, just being able to say with certainty that one managed to rediscover Bessler's design and solve this centuries old mystery should be enough of a "prize" in itself. Anything beyond that will be frosting on the cake...but be content if all one gets out of this is the cake!

      Delete
    2. Hi Ken, Well first the wheel would not spin fast enough to throw weights, and if you have a machine you don't have to feed, any size is a bargain. There are governments around the world working on and spending billions to make fusion a reality. A berm could be constructed to avert noise. As far as the world is concerned the wheel has never been made and even if they where enlightened there is no proof as to the design that Bessler used and as such it would belong to the designer. I would assume that there would be several designs that could work. I don't covet the prize but I believe the designer will get it, although I do agree with you that just making it would be the best reward. I think we just disagree on the magnitude of the finding in the real world and there is only one way to find out what that will be. I better get back to the drawing board, now I got something to prove, LOL. Alaskabobb

      Delete
    3. I believe that some sort of fusion reactor is a possibility, but it will require a far more reliable method for containing the working plasma in which the fusion takes place, perhaps an improved magnetic bottle of some sort. Sooner or later someone will find a design that works. But, I've heard that pitch now for the last several decades and we still do not have fusion reactors. Then again, I've seen dozens of "working" free energy devices on youtube and not a one of them has found its way into commercial use. Sort of makes me think what I'm seeing there is all a big hoax. However, I still believe that Yildiz is on to something real. He, like Bessler, does not seem hesitant to demonstrate his devices to some very skeptical types. You say that there is "no proof as to the design that Bessler used" and I have to strongly disagree with that statement. I have found a large supply of previously unsuspected clues that he left the interpretations of which have led me to my current design. Yes, I agree that there may be several different ways of achieving mechanical pm, but I think that Bessler only had one of them which was used in all of his wheels. Soon after his design is revealed there'll be a bit of initial excitement, but then it will quickly die down when it's realized that the power outputs of replications of his wheels or even much larger versions do not really justify the cost of constructing them. Yes, they produce "free" energy which is nice, but so do solar panels with no moving parts to wear out. I view Bessler's wheels as more laboratory curiosities than practical methods of generating power. He originally hoped to sell them as a means of pumping water out of flooded coal mines, but those interested in that use quickly realized that they were not powerful enough for that purpose and decided to switch over to using steam powered pumps which could get the job done. This is probably the main reason his inventions did not sell and not because there was some sort of conspiracy of jealous contemporaries to stop the sale. If he could have produced a wheel that would perform as well as a steam engine, then it would have sold and we would be using them today.

      Delete
  8. Oh yeh, I get to go to the SEMA/AAPEX trade show in Las Vegas all next week, AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, it's Wednesday and I still haven't found the courage to run the "acid test" on my latest wheel design which would involve switching on the center of mass tracking feature in wm2d. I'm a bit afraid to run it because, if the design fails to keep that center on the descending side throughout a 45 degree segment of wheel rotation, it will mean that the design is not quite right yet and I may still have much work to do before a solution is obtained. But, I did spend several minutes yesterday evening trouble shooting the design to find out why the levers were not fully resetting and discovered, that one of the main ropes in it had the wrong length! It was about 0.25 inches shorter than it was supposed to be in the 3 foot diameter model wheel, but that was enough to mess everything up. Although great precision is not required for this design to function and it is a bit "forgiving", if the parameters are off beyond a certain degree, then it will not work. Once I got that bug corrected, I spent about a half hour just watching the levers as they smoothly shifted as I "looped" the design so that it would automatically rerun itself every 7.5 seconds or 45 degrees of rotation. This gives the illusion that the wheel is continuously rotating. At the end of 45 degrees everything is back to its starting configuration. In fact, this actually happens after about 42 degrees of wheel rotation. As I watched it, I found it to almost be hypnotizing. I can not believe at this point that this is not the mechanism that Bessler found and used. Every part of it can be "justified" by the previously unknown clues that I've found during my research. This must be it! I'll know in a few more days when the "acid test" is performed. If successful, I'll note the day, date, and exact time of day for "historical" purposes. I'm feeling very optimistic about it at this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to have to delay the "acid test" on the wm2d computer model wheel I've been working on recently for a while. Incredibly, in reviewing the various clues for all of its parts, I discovered that there is an alternative numerological interpretation for the location of the spring connection points to the levers. It's a small change of only about 5% of an increase, but it will make a noticeable difference in the way the whole wheel works, particularly the speed at which the ascending side levers lift their weights back toward their periphery stops as wheel rotation proceeds. That rate plays a critical role in keeping the center of mass of the weights and levers at a more or less fixed location on the descending side of the wheel. So, I've decided that I will make an entirely new model wheel using this change in the attachment point location. When that is done, I will then have two models, only slightly different in one of their parameters, that I will have to do "acid tests". It's extra work, but I'd hate to be this close and then quit because a design failed when only the smallest change in it could have made it work. There are, currently, about twenty (!) parameters that go into the design which I am very convinced Bessler used. These parameters were meticulously encoded into some of his illustrations and they must all be present and of the correct values to make a wheel work with maximum efficiency. Hopefully, I'll complete the final acid tests on both wheels next week. If I find success at long last, I'll record the rediscovery date/time, and then move on to a model using the appropriate parameters for a 12 foot diameter wheel. If that works, then I will know with an extremely high degree of certainty that the search is over and a workable solution has been found. The next step will be to write up a detailed description of the mechanisms he used and publish it. I also intend to give a full account of the location of the clues that led to the design. The material I have found is truly amazing and I am confident that it will convince most that it was intentionally left by Bessler in order to guide future pm wheel builders toward the successful duplication of this wheels. It's just too bad that the secret could not have been revealed during his lifetime so that he could receive a fair compensation for his labors and we could see what might be done with the design. Although I am not impressed by the power output of his wheels, it's always possible that the principles they used might be improved upon now that we have computers and modern materials. That, however, will be a task for others to perform. My work will be over once I publish the design. Stay tuned for further developments.

      Delete
  10. Just a quick update. I now have three complete wm2d models for Bessler's wheels that use three different spring attachment points to the levers. All of these designs appear to be shifting their levers smoothly during each 45 degrees of wheel rotation and restoring the various orientations of their levers by the end of the segment. But, upon studying the motions of the levers more closely, there are slight differences in the rates at which the ascending side levers shift about. I'm now convinced that one of these is "it" and I should know next week when I do an "acid test" on each model (!) which involves running their simulations while tracking their centers of mass. As a wheel rotates clockwise, the center of mass of its weights and levers tends to swing down below the axle and then onto the ascending side of the wheel. This effect is cancelled out by the tendency of the center of mass to rise by swinging up around the axle on the wheel's descending side as a design's levers automatically shift themselves during wheel rotation. In order to be able to declare that I've finally got "it", I have to see the center of mass of the weights and levers remaining, more or less, stationary in the position it is in at the beginning of each 45 degree segment of wheel rotation. This can only be possible if the two tendencies above are in working simultaneously and at the same rates. Just because a design's center of mass returns to its starting point at the end of a 45 degree segment of wheel rotation really means little. It's what happens to the location of that center during the segment of rotation that counts. It must remain virtually stationary. To achieve this fixation of the center of mass requires a very precise interplay of the motions of the various levers and only one particular, I believe, attachment point to the levers will be the one that causes that interplay. Bessler left clues about how to find this special point, but I am having trouble zeroing in on it, thus the need to test three separate model wheels. I should know next week. I'm taking the weekend off to go flea marketing, get some more work done on my next book, and just relax. It would be nice to read what some others are doing with their pm wheel research.

    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...