Monday, 16 March 2015

Bessler Wheel update, March 2015

On the besslerwheel forum, the enthusiasm, drive and ingenuity of the search for the solution to Bessler's wheel seems to have faded to a marked degree.  65 pages of thread titles and 5814 topics, 1663 users - and yet the most active topic is....'A working wheel is only days away!' with 2753 replies and not one millimetre of advance in almost two years of hot air, bluster and bragging.

The number of posts per month have dropped by at least 30 percent, from a peak in 2010. The same fall is reflected in the number of topics, down a similar amount over the same period.  The number of new users is way down too.  To what can we attribute this sad demise of a once fascinating and exciting field of research?  Well it isn't truly a new topic is it?  It seems to have occupied the mind of man, and not at all of woman, for at least three thousand years, and in all that time just one example of apparent success.

I say 'apparent' but it would be hard to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Johann Bessler succeeded...if only it wasn't for the fact that what he did is supposed to be impossible.  I think the birth of the internet spread the word about the legend of Bessler's wheel and attracted the attention of all sorts of people from all over the world, but that initial spurt of excitement and enthusiasm has kind of petered out, like an auto running out of gas.     The gas was the sudden spread of information about Bessler but that information is still out there and yet the car is about to stop.  There is some other factor having a braking effect and I think it is the result of too many people crying wolf, I don't exclude myself from this allegation and I understand all too well how it happens.

To succeed would be such an extraordinary achievement that each of us dreams of the esteem and approbation due to the inventor, and every so often a sudden revelation strikes one so hard with such conviction that it is almost impossible to restrain one's enthusiasm enough not to publicly announce success, even before a single mechanism has been put together.  In the course of our research most of us learn to restrain our enthusiastic urge to shout the news from the rooftops.

The other reason for the drop in new people coming to this subject is probably a result of the publicity it has garnered over the last few years and which has also inspired an even greater number of sceptics to air their own views to the detriment of the potential newcomer's intentions.  There is nothing like being the subject of scorn, derision, sarcasm and pity to put people off investing time in the subject.

I have to admit my own shortcomings at this point.  Although I have helped to spread the information about Bessler which I have gathered over many years, I'm aware that I have not revealed much of the designs I have worked on.  But I have endeavoured to put out as much information as I have been able to with regard to the encoded material Bessler left behind, but of course seeing the codes and even working out what some of them say, does not seem to advance us one tiny bit on our path to success.  So I promise that later this year I will publish all that I have found including the principle I discovered, even if my own wheel fails to materialise.  This will happen because of certain constraints upon my own situation which forces me to present my findings as soon as possible, with or without a working wheel.  It's nothing bad but I just need to get on with my research and present my findings while I am still (relatively) young!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

103 comments:

  1. John, this principle you discovered 2years ago was it in the clues, or is it your own discovery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I discovered the principle myself, and then found it was in the clues, but I wouldn't have recognised what the clue meant if I hadn't known about the principle first.

      JC

      Delete
  2. The drop off in interest is predictable, John. People want to see results, breakthroughs, and exciting new paradigms emerge from any subject. We've been at this Bessler stuff for decades now and have no solid results to show other than a handful of "free energy" sites that have mostly become gathering places for frustrated wheel builders to bash each other or bore each other with "analyses" of devices that most likely will never be built or even modeled. Very few people have time for that. The world wants, no demands, results and success. Anything other than that is a waste of time in their opinion. But, to tell you the truth, I now believe that, even if the secret of Bessler's wheels was discovered tomorrow and a working duplicate built within a week, it would only be "big" news for about a week or so unless it could be shown that it could, say, power a person's home with electricity at minimal cost. That's why I don't expect too much from this subject. My goal is only to solve the mystery and move on to other things. It needs to be done for historical purposes and if anything more comes of it then fine, but I'm not counting on it. I look forward to seeing the details of the principle you believe is the secret of Bessler's wheels. If I knew it now I could do a quick wm2d model of it to see if it works as you think it will. If it does, then great. If not, then the reason why it does not could help you modify it with the hope of making it workable. Constant feedback from tests is critical to making progress in any area of research. Meanwhile, I have been very busy with my "Second Fork" research approach. In the last two days, I've completed and tested another three models and, sadly, so far no success. But, it immediately allowed me to eliminate a spring arrangement that I thought looked very interesting and I'm pursuing another one now. It won't be long before I'm testing that 1200th model at the rate I'm going!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hope there's nothing too ominous behind the renewed urgency John, although i can't help but admit i'm relieved to hear i may have something to test before the year's out... My interest in OU has always been to evaluate claims that are testable, and ignore those that aren't. If someone claims he can make energy from elastic bands, but the method's a secret, i ignore it and move on. But if some method or principle is provided, or just alluded to, i can connect the dots and test the claim. That's what i do, it's what i enjoy. It means my efforts aren't consigned to absolute futility, if only to conclusively overturn a preposterous claim.

    So i would never have batted an eyelid at the Bessler case, were it not for the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Whereas normally circumstantial evidence alone wouldn't get my attention, here that's all we have, yet it was enough that i've been willing to try and discover the method myself, more from first principles than Bessler clues. And i've got nowhere in two years trying..

    So if you've got something half-concrete, i wanna test it. I'll sign no end of NDA's - although a public reveal here on your own blog would cement your priority, the desire for some kind of financial reward and an IP claim is perfectly understandable. Seriously though, all the damn secrecy is a real turn off for me. Not just from you, but all the others making tantalizing claims i cannot test. It defeats my whole raison d'etre here, compounding Bessler's own frustrating reticence...

    For myself, i'm still tinkering, but more looking for a lead than investigating anything particular. I still spend all day every day chewing it over. I'll never quit - can't, without some kind of resolution, even if i'm not making regular posts on the BW forum.

    All i really want to say though is that if we all shared our research openly, then if your current hypothesis were correct we as a group could have validated it two years ago, and you - and everyone, everywhere - could be benefiting from it already. If on the other hand it's another dead end, you could've spent the last two years looking for some other principle. The culture of secrecy benefits no one. Isn't that the overriding moral of Bessler's story? It ultimately squanders more opportunity than it curries.. none of us are getting any younger, or healthier.

    Final thought - it also has an inadvertently pernicious effect, discouraging innovation amongst others... looking through the eyes of other seekers; what's the point if JC already has it? Should i continue scrabbling around in the dark when someone who could shine a light is holding back? Would my efforts be better spent trying to crack JC's code, than Bessler's? Or Oystein's work, Silvertiger's, etc. etc. For someone like me who wants to test physical principles, secrecy is the enemy of progress.. In a case so compelling as Bessler's yet where all we have is circumstantial evidence and baffling discombobulation, any contributions that might provide objective exhibits are too precious to keep hidden..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right Vibe, there probably is a negative effect on other seekers if they think the problem has been solved but not published. I probably will publish something here before the main event!

      JC

      Delete
  4. Now seriously, not joking, because Besslerwheel forum is American it is highly censorsed, the forum would be more free if it was in China or North Korea .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do not want non American members on that forum.

      Delete
    2. Anon, you ARE joking, are you not?

      If sincere truly, how on earth could you have formed such an idea, ?

      J.C., here, is an Englishman, and I never noticed any such untoward effects debilitating him, over at B.W.F.

      And as for censorship, no. Not "highly censored" or anywhere near.

      If my prickly and oft-questionable stuff is not censored, then no one's would be.

      The only thing near to it in a way, is the Greenie rep system, which I despise utterly. Although the high numbered ones deny it persistently, consistently, it is used AS WEAPONRY against lower ones that are helpless.

      To be and think otherwise by said deniers, would be contra- known human nature, which is flawed severely always, with but a few nice exceptions here-or-there, when operating accordance with their best manners, otherwise matters proceeding according to Crowley Rules!

      J.

      Delete
    3. "If sincere truly, how on earth could you have formed such an idea, ?"

      From the behavior of Scott Ellis over the years, for example from the second paragraph of the main page of his besslerwheel website " A bitter man, he took his secret to the grave and drifted into obscurity. "
      I think Ellis is referring to himself because Bessler was not a bitter man . The psychology of this is that Ellis is unconsciously transferring his own psychological make-up onto Johann Bessler .

      Delete
    4. It would seem that we now have an analyst among us. (Psychoanalyst too.)

      You are impressive.

      An NSA troll, perhaps?

      (Such slithering, under-the-rock type specimens can be easily tagged by their virtuoso ease of self-insertion, coming on very strong as if always having been around, from out of nowhere. Such a case we seem to have here. If so, is best to deal early with such cases BEFORE metastasization.)

      If not, if I am in-error, then IDENTIFY yourself, and some credibility may materialize for you, other than that deriving-of the merely logical/expository, at which we know you to be at least adequate.

      Awaited, is knowledge of your identity, otherwise BUG-OFF!

      J.

      Delete
  5. Think of a wheel with two sets of weights positioned side by side , front to back at the rim . On descent the weight pairs are allowed to rest . On ascent the heavier set of weights will lift the lighter . This is my newest idea . I also have an idea of two rotating apologia wheels within where the lowermost ap wheel carries the weight from the center to the edge ... of which I have made an animation containing two weights . It is heavy and full/empty and light .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mimi here:
    "...not at all woman". A claim heard from you before, and I outed myself then already. I do admit, that I know of no other woman in this area, but maybe they just lurk in blogs and forums, same as I usually do.
    I did a lot of wheel-building (table-top models) in the beginning and then moved on to modelling (Physion and WM2D). Found some models which work for a while or go into "overdrive", showing that there are boundary conditions where the simulation stops working correctly. For a while now, I have been delving into Maths and Physics to try to define the set of parameters which would work. While I find that exciting, it would be pointless to hoot about it until proven correct...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mimi, please contact me on docbrown850@gmail.com I live in Croatia and am hard at work with this problem, if you're near maybe we can meet? Please write =)

      Delete
    2. My apologies to you, Mimi. I hadn't forgotten that you were a once a contributor to the forum and I'm really pleased that you are still investigating the mystery, I thought perhaps you'd moved on to other things. Good luck and if you hear of other women with similar interests tell them there is a forum if they need one.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Hi Mimi, I was going to say to JC, hey, what about Mimi, but you already beat me too it. His point is correct though, it is all boys and no girls involved in this. You are the exception, you are exceptional!
      My best wishes to you and for your work,
      John

      Delete
  7. "each of us dreams of the esteem and approbation due to the inventor"
    You John are dreaming, you will not get esteem and approbation in this world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous again!

      What a heck of a thing to assert.

      He may dream of things larger but, also he already has gotten both from "this world", as much as I have gotten little to none, and all these for very good reason. (BUT, I am working on this matter from my own direction.)

      John's productions born of heart-felt sincere work, as done over such a long while, have earned him much respect, and this has been honestly and most kindly obtained.

      Here also, I fear you are not right.

      J.

      Delete
    2. You misunderstand my post, people in this world are horrible, no matter what one does or how hard they work, they will not get esteem and approbation from the people of this world because they are simply not nice, this human race in my opinion deserves to go extinct and they do not deserve the bessler wheel, our race deserves to become extinct and that is why things like the fukishima disaster are happening and there is a lot more coming like that.

      Delete
    3. John, really, this last post of this "Anonymous" above is a perfect example standing for why they should not be allowed. Really.

      Their presence and interference works a very real burden on those commenters known-to-all.

      For instance, this particular Anonymous clown DARES to use the term "my"!

      'My'?

      But, who IS "my"?

      I don't know nor does anyone else other than himself or, herself, or itself. Could be a machine responding or a disrupting, disinformation troll. Who knows and why should anyone in their right, fricking mind condescend to converse with such?

      This is a real and deserving, valid question: Why?

      Now, that said, this particular Anonymous seems one vicious type customer, alright; his expressed desire and opinions being borderline unacceptable. (I should know of the kind, pushing the limit rather often myself, BUT, at least I am 'a known", no?)

      I rest my case. (For the moment, but, there is more; very much more in the arsenal, at-the-ready.)

      - James

      Delete
  8. Please publish it now, I have started putting up material too, it's been just too much holding on to everything and not sharing, sharing will get us the solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doing it now and publishing soon.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Great! I'm looking forward to what you reveal (along with the clues that led up to it) and will try to model it to check its feasibility. You either have something or you don't. But, even if you don't, it might be fixable with a little tweaking here and there. The advantage of publishing it is that, whether you or someone else builds / models it or makes modifications that make it work, you will still get the credit for the original rediscovery of what Bessler originally discovered centuries ago.

      Delete
  9. Replies
    1. Yes, I keep silent "before the storm". I have started working on getting a serious publisher for 2 or 3 parallel books on what has become fully documented code systems for secret information used by an intellectual elite throughout Europe for the last 400 years. (The methods have been keot secret/undocumented) that is why they are secret. Besslers Codes is in the same category, but will be one of the separate books with several parallel approaches and cross references.The implications are enormous, and I am totally blown away. It has come to a level where I may feel insecure by telling to much up front. Some people don`t want all this going public.I assure you that I tell no lies.The fact is that there are still people (high rank) "laughing" of "us" at secret meetings, while they teach the old inherited secret methods and they also flash them before our eyes today (so to speak). This was not what I was expecting some months ago, but I can`t help it, I have to follow what appears by the application of now documented methods. I assure you that it will be VERY exciting to read. So my two main books have now the working titles "The incredible machine"/Orffyreus` Codes Revealed and "The Disclosure". I have now managed to give unprepared readers goose bumps after a few minutes of presentation of my work. That made me feel that I had to pursue a professional publishing/approach.

      Delete
    2. Sounds interesting, Oystein. But I've noticed that pm seekers are more interested in designs they can build and test rather than coding systems. Hopefully, these codes you claim to have found will translate into some mechanics that can be tested. I agree that publishing books is a great way to establish priority and keep one's ideas in the public eye for years to come. I often wonder what will happen to all of the verbiage currently being stored on server hard drives around the world, say, a decade from now. Something tells me they will all disappear along with their scrapped servers that are recycled daily to make the latest electronic gadgets. But, a book can be sitting on a library shelf or selling online a century from now! I'm currently putting the finishing touches on my fifth book and hoping to have it to the publisher early next month. I had wanted it to be the one that I revealed the secret of Bessler's wheels in, but that was not meant to be. Now I'm starting to wonder if I ever will be writing that book. Time will tell.

      Delete
    3. Øystein, I too am silent before the storm. Yes indeed, the question of potential foreknowledge of this subject/object is absolutely fascinating. Did you read my poem Solomon's Freight that has been on my website for some years? http://factumpoetica.org/solomons-frieght/
      Good luck with the books, I look forward to reading them.
      John

      Delete
  10. John, nice Poem! Ken, yes, the reason for the codes existence was to provide and secure a specified mechanism/s and a principle. You can`t have the one without the other.The system is just so fascinating and rock solid and perfect like sacred numbers and geometry, it must not be forgotten. Just as the mechanism itself. They are both up there among the fine arts to be remembered. I think Bessler felt that his solution had its roots in sacred numbers, geometry and letters, everything fits together and makes up a new system that seems sacred. It would add to his belief that it was a gift from God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I, too, have found specific numbers that occur repeatedly in the clues Bessler left us. They all have some numerological or religious significance. When I first found these numbers, I thought I was "seeing things". But, no, they are definitely there and correlate to particular parameters used in the construction of his secret pm mechanism. Unfortunately, I have, so far, not yet discovered all of them although I continue to work on it. If I eventually do a book on Bessler's wheels, I will probably be devoting as many pages to interpreting his clues as I do to describing the actual mechanics of his wheels! I must do this because I don't want anyone to think the final working design I present is strictly the product of my imagination. I want people to realize that every part of it can be justified by one or more clues Bessler left.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I have found no numbers directly related to the machine itself. I don`t think it is a good idea to try to secure an ivention by numbers descibing it.

      Delete
  11. Come back, Dan Brown - all is forgiven! Either it's silly season or this thread's just been hijacked as a viral marketing campaign for the new X-Files relaunch.

    Still, no jam today. We're all pretty certain there WAS jam yesterday.. but will there be jam tomorrow? I don't know, but i'm gonna stick around and find out.

    Come to think of it, it IS silly season, isn't it? Mad as a March hare, much? I know i do..

    Mmm, jam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol. Dan Brown have done no more than to speculate and interprate. And Vibrator IS silly. Do you realize where you are posting???? The large letters on the top of this page say: ¤Bessler`s Wheel and the Orffyreus Code" ¤I'll comment on things connected with it.." In my mind,this page is about Orffyreus Codes and not so much about topping and animals etc.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, the 'jam tomorrow' meme is from Alice in Wonderland - a bit of an obscure reference, but one that often comes to mind in these circles..

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_tomorrow

      But seriously, i'm on tenterhooks for whatever you're about to reveal.

      Delete
  12. "In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd," - author of the eponymous Quixotic quest, Miguel de Cervantes, his burial site confirmed today by Spanish archeologists.

    And in further harebrained trivia - could these intrepid fellows have been any relation? The Besler bros. remarkable steam-powered aeroplane: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20d_1426637865

    ..although to be fair, it probably blows less hot air than our mutually-esteemed (if reputedly-mad) hero..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brilliant Mr Vibe! Seems so practical, I wonder if there have been any steam powered aircraft recently?

      JC

      Delete
  13. Vibrator .. FYI, Oystein says the codes show emphatically that it is a gravity ONLY mechanism and principle. This should pique your interest for the obvious scientific reasons but also gets my attention because of Oystein's long standing street cred as a level headed individual not prone to excited utterances and self delusion.

    I agree with all your other comments. I look forward to the day I get something of substance to think about and test out if I am able. That will be a memorable day.

    -fletcher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To John Collins .. I do not mean to diminish your efforts John in any way, and also very much look forward to your findings and reveal. That too will be an interesting day, especially if we have a second or more comparable approach to compare against.

      I note that both you and Oystein are convinced that it is a gravity ONLY principle, although you have never deviated from this belief. That in itself is exciting. I do also note that your approach may be subject to confirmation bias precisely because you thought of the principle first then found it in the clues (including codes). Oystein may also see what he wants to see but did find codes first that lead him to a mechanism and principle. Let's hope you are both on the tale of the same fox and catch it before it disappears down the hole.

      -fletcher

      Delete
    2. You make a valid point Fletch and it's one that I have been keenly aware of ever since the reaction to my publishing of what I described as Bessler's codes was criticised for not stating that it was speculation and not necessarily fact (http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/). In this kind of research it is easy to be misled if you are chasing an idea and you think you have found confirmation. A second pair of eyes is a useful check or control to keep the speculation down to a sensible level. However as I am constantly pursuing seemingly illusory targets, most of my confirmation are subject to the cold light of dawn, and I am now my fiercest critic.

      The principle I discovered is easily understood and therefore I sought the evidence that Bessler was aware of it too as that would lend support to my finding.I found it more than once in both text and drawings each find supporting the others. As the principle is so simple there can be no argument about its validity nor, given Bessler's several allusions to it, can there be any doubt that he too knew of it. Finally, without this principle included in the design there can be no Besslerwheel.

      JC

      Delete
  14. Well John, I might as well throw my hat in the ring too. All the merrier. No, I haven't looked for any principle concealed in codes found in drawings and texts etc. Your good self and Oystein (and a few other old timers such as Mr Tim) seem to have that more than well covered and it's obviously having it's day in the sun. That is good and I hope to read all your deductions for myself one day to judge for myself, and obviously to see if there is alignment between all of you to some degree or other. I certainly hope there is commonality of some findings, at the very least as vindication for each of you.

    In that regard I'm a dinosaur with the least of talent. I'm much more the purest in search of a mechanical principle that might be of use to us in this quest to solve Bessler's riddle. That is, how a single mechanical principle embodied in the form of a "Prime Mover" mechanism can be applied inside a wheel to cause imbalance in so many different and varied mass displacement designs as alluded to in MT. Naturally the mech must outwardly disagree with conventional science (the symmetry break) since a bone fide self sustaining animate wheel contravenes all known Physical Laws. It should also by necessity incorporate gravity as part of its modus operandi as the secondary system is undoubtedly the imbalance portion that does the turning.

    Interestingly I did find such a mech, based in part on the storksbill of which Bessler speaks. It came to me from insight borne of intuition and pulling apart familiar equations until I distilled a relationship. I ran the spreadsheet and was more than a little surprised and relieved with the first crude math results from the model as they trickled out. I continue to improve this modeling and simplify to the bare essence. So far so good. It looks logical and not at all surprising once this principle is known. As we all know I could be misguided and be deluding myself and the quickest way to find that out is to share the idea openly. I am going away tomorrow for six weeks or so so won't be taking it any further privately or publicly till I get back.

    What I can say is that I diverge from both you and Oystein at a most basic level. While gravity is the force that turns the wheel through imbalance of mass, it is in my modeling inertia that is the missing ingredient of the Prime Mover that ultimately makes it all possible. Therefore whilst it could be described as a gravity wheel I could not call it a gravity ONLY wheel. That makes me think we are on divergent paths and perhaps time will tell if I don't find its Achilles Heel and the idea continues to breath life a bit longer.

    Live long and prosper -fletcher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the feedback. Although I appear to have concentrated on finding and breaking codes, my first priority has always been to try find a simple mechanical solution. That is why I have always believed that the solution will only come to light by a hands-on builder. Simulation for me is too restrictive and either works or doesn't whereas, it seems to me that there may be subtleties and nuances of behaviour that can all to easily be missed.

      I wish you good luck with your own delusion as I follow mine to its logical end!!! I hope you will revisit upon your return, and have a safe journey wherever it may be.

      JC

      Delete
  15. LOL ... and good luck to you also John. Ironically I haven't simmed a wheel form yet in its entirety. The complexity might be too much for my new laptop as it often was for my old one. (The last one got stolen last Dec and I lost the WM program I had on it). The last few months have been the old fashioned way, with digital pen and paper and running numbers on a spreadsheet and then building components and variants of the Prime Mover mech in sim world to test the hypothesis and the math of the principle behind the functionality of the Prime Mover.

    If the math shows an energy gain (4 to 1 btw) then I expect a competent builder could repeat something similar in real world. Sim world might be problematic if the program does not allow Conservation violations, as to have an energy gain surely is.

    Referring to the Toy Page, I do add that it appears no accident that Bessler shows an 8 segment storksbill as this is directly related to fourfold gains the math predicts, in my case. Neither is the deliberate inclusion of the 2 hammermen drawings. But then we have all had theories and hypothesis's before and I'm not immune from begin mistaken or wrong. At least this time I started from a ground up math base and then went looking for a mechanical arrangement that could fulfill the practicalities.

    Of course I will be checking in on my return. I'll need to get my head back in the game ;7) -fletcher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I certainly hope I don't have a case of 'premature matriculation' :) -ft

      Delete
  16. Codes and theories are all fine and well intentioned, but, ultimately, if they do not "reduce" to a testable mechanism, then they are just so much "premature perpetuation". I use a sort of bizarre feedback approach in my Bessler research. I start with a "plausible" mechanism and then, as it fails to work, try to use the geometrical / numerical clues Bessler provided in certain portions of his illustrations to refine my model wheels. I've been doing this now for years and, remarkably, I now believe that I have over 90% of the details of the actual pm mechanism he used. Unfortunately, I need the full 100% in order for it to work! Getting the remaining 10% is just a matter of time. I need to hope my enthusiasm for the subject and mental / physical strength hold up. So far they have, but things tend to change for the worst with advancing age. Good thing I take a lot of vitamins and minerals every day!

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Fletch - have a top notch trip, and thanks for the update in your research, sounds really promising! If inertia's the key then i'm guessing the sustained acceleration curve of the storksbills somehow plays off against the acceleration of gravity, but beyond that i'm out of steam... either way, i'm looking forward to the reveal..

    Re. JC and Oystein's convictions only gravity can work (without wanting to put words in anyone's mouths) - i'm sure everyone can agree that 1G on a rotating spacestation or accelerating rocketship is perfectly equivalent to 1G at sea level for the purposes of operation of whatever the mechanism may be. And equally, if its parts were instead magnetised, with their degrees of magnetisation mirroring thier respective weights at 1G, then a large stator magnet presenting the same force should elicit the same effect.

    If i'm wrong on this then there's something unique to gravity i'm overlooking... which is entirely possible i suppose - my rationale is simply that force is force, is force... F=MA, regardless of the flavour.. But then, maybe that's why i'm not getting anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This topic is right up me olde alley, John.

    It is so that B.W.F. enthusiasm seems to have waned generally.

    To myself it is no mystery - being that the operative, interior mechanism has not yet been found, accounts for it mostly.

    What else, really?

    So, until that happy moment arrives finally, what else is there for those who have put-in so much work and lost both sweat and time never to be recovered, trying for this discovery of discoveries on their own?

    The answer right-and-true presents itself, I believe.

    For my own, as I've said before numerously, I know of only ONE way that is honest, to profit nicely from subject Perpetual Motion, Orde-Hume having set the stage.

    And finally, this Anonymous Tyranny is becoming a real posterior pain. (For an instance, other than the fact that he SIGNS as such, just how are we to know that it is Fletcher himself who is posting? By magic? By faith? Or, is it that we have come to know his style and evident logic/intelligence by which we can tell him apart from a imposter? Whatever the case, actually, still we are just guessing . . . and hoping for workability.)

    This new Topic certainly does spark novel thinking. We have become used-to their like but, certainly not ungrateful.

    James

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry John, kiking is not Bessler's principle. I really hope you're not still hung up on that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see it either, but let's wait and see... there's tentative gaps for wiggle room, perhaps; an object in free-fall is effectively weightless; if whatever's pumping the swing is effectively free; etc. etc. To my thinking, since the one-way wheels were under static torque when stopped, any advantage gained through swinging must pertain to a subsidised re-lift, rather than a boosted drop.

      But real ingenuity's a hard thing to second guess...

      Delete
    2. Agreed! I don't see kiiking as holding the answer either. However the principle of moving weights out and in still holds good for part of a rotation.

      JC

      Delete
  20. @ VIBRATOR,
    Looks like time is running out, and there's no way I'll be able to finish my model, are you up for running a simulation ?

    Here goes, imagine a small weight, about 5lbs. able to run back and forth on a track, the track can also double as the wheels spokes.
    At the hub end of the track is a pulley with a clock spring inside it, and a cord between the pulley and one end of the weight.
    As you pull out the weight, the spring winds up, release the weight an it retracts, like an extending dog lead.
    On the other side of the weight is another rope that goes to the rim, with the weight retracted toward the hub, the rim rope is tight.
    Now here's the good part, about 1/3 in from the rim is a large pendulum type weight, of say 20lbs., the rim rope is not fixed to the pendulum but it passes UNDER it.
    This means that on the descending side the rim rope is in a V shape, and pulls out the 5lb. weight.
    On the ascending side the pendulum swings away from the rope, allowing the spring pulley to pull the 5lb. weight back.
    There is a possibility that a 2:1 ratio pulley is used in the rim rope, so as to move the 5lb. weight further, only experimentation will tell.

    Hope you can understand this description.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vibe,
      let me know if you're interested, if not I'll delete, then it's adios.

      John,
      disinterest in the subject is not the only reason people give up, I'll leave it to you to figure out.

      Delete
    2. I've got the general picture - only issue is that WM2D doesn't have a built-in widget for spindles / spools. So in order to wrap a chord around a pulley you have to use a small scripted function - i've seen it done, but never used it myself. On the one occassion i HAD to model something like this, i made a chain of solid links connected by short chords instead, which was a little clunky - both in terms of collision detection and CPU load on the sim. So that one detail would be stretching my meagre skills with WM2D...

      The other issue is, when you say that on the ascending side the pendulum swings away from the rope - do you mean a typical pendulum action; ie. swinging between opposite maxima due to conservation of momentum? Because this can't happen if it's also performing work against the axial sprung pulley - instead it'll fall out to hang vertically as the spoke reaches 90° horizontal, then at 180° vertical it'll hang down vertically, allowing the axial sprung pulley to retract the sliding weight, but then as the spoke comes back up to horizontal at 270° it'll hang down vertically again, pulling the sliding weight outwards again - ie. the sliding weight will be retracted by the hanging large weight on both descent and ascent..

      If i'm not grasping the concept then break it down into four quadrants - describe the relative weight positions at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock.

      And no you can't 'adios'. Who you kidding? You're as bitten by the bug as any of us... No quits - it's the #1 unwritten rule. We solve this or we go senile trying... ;)

      Delete
    3. Vibe,
      the 8 heavy pendulums do what heavy pendulums do, that is want to hang straight down.
      I think this is the lazy horses Bessler referred to, inertia = lazy.
      They don't actually swing, but imagine at 12 0'clock, the pendulum arm is inline with its track/ spoke, so there is no tension on the cord going to the rim.
      At 3 O'clock the pendulum arm is at 90 deg. to the track/spoke, and because the cord is under the heavy weight, it's pulled into a V shape, pulling the small weight along.
      At 9 O'clock, the pendulum will still be hanging at 90 deg. to the track/spoke, but the rope will be above the pendulum, and arm.
      Imagine Ferris wheel gondolas, they always hang straight down.
      So starting at 12 O'clock, the tension is just being taken up, with the rim cord to the right of the pendulum, the small weight is retracted to the hub, just starting to move.
      45 deg. after 12 O'clock the pendulum is at an angle to the track/spoke,the cord under the pendulum, the small weight 1/2 way out.
      At 3 O'clock, the pendulum arm is at 90 deg. to the track/spoke, the cord still underneath the pendulum, and in its full V shape, the small weight is extended fully out, BUT, not right to the rim, because room has to be left so as not to interfere with the pendulum.
      At 45 deg. after 3 O'clock, the rim cord is still under the pendulum, but the angle of the V is increased, so there is not so much pull on the rim cord, and the small weight retracts back 1/2 way.
      At 6 O'clock the rim cord will be on the LEFT of the pendulum, with very little strain on it, the small weight will be almost fully retracted, and in balance with the small weight at 12 O'clock.
      The remaining three pendulums will not be touching the rim cord, so the three small weights will be at the hub.
      So, briefly, the small weights at 12 & 6 balanced, 3 fully out, 45 deg. before/ after 3, 1/2 way.
      9 fully retracted, 45 deg before/after 9, fully retracted.
      This is what I saw in plain sight on the Meresberg drawing, thinking in reverse Bessler mode, the window pulley is a fixed point, the rope comes down UNDER the pendulum, up and around the axle, ( spring loaded pulley )
      Ever wonder why the perspective looks a bit off, and why it makes the pendulum seem as though it should swing left/right, and not back/forth ?

      Delete
    4. Vibe,
      the first model I made of this, I used elastic bands to return the small weights, I tried the wheel with two opposite sections, and it turned 55 deg. from the horizontal ( yes 55 again ! )
      With another two sections it turned 110 deg.
      When I put all eight sections together, I couldn't get the elastic to work properly so as to move the weights correctly.
      I assume a spring loaded drum was used because of space constraints, but a straight forward spring return may suffice for any simulations.

      Delete
    5. I think the reason it isn't working is the pendulums won't always hang straight down, they'll be pulled in slightly toward the hub by the load they're trying to shift. Just enough to balance the advantage the shift gives. Does that sound reasonable?

      Delete
    6. Doug,
      the pendulums all hung straight down, the problem was, I was working at too small a scale.
      I couldn't make a small enough spring loaded pulley, so I used an elastic band as a return.
      If you imagine a steel tape measure, some you can pull out to 20ft. +, and it will roll back into a 2 - 3 in. square case.
      With a coil spring or elastic to get say a 4ft. stretch, the spring / band has to be about 1 1/2 - 2 ft. long.
      I couldn't get the small weights to move far enough to make a difference, I was lucky with the first four segments, but I just didn't manage to achieve it for the rest.

      Delete
    7. @Stevo

      Sorry, i realised after going to bed that the chord would lie over the pendulum at 9 o'clock, and i have to say it sounds like a brilliant design.

      I'll definitely have ago at simming it this weekend, will keep you updated. Again, WM2D doesn't offer collisions for chords / ropes - they can only have fixture points at their ends, but the main body of the rope passes through any solid shapes so can't wrap around anything.

      This means any implementations i come up with will have to work around this limitation, and so differ slightly. However i totally get the principle, and will try keep everything functionally equivalent.


      @Doug

      The hanging weights can be arbitrarily heavy - if say, there's four such mechanisms in a cross-shaped config, all four pendulums will exert the same force all of the time, balancing out. Equally, in principal the smaller sliding weights can be arbitrarily light, so with minimal friction there should still be OB torque. As well, WM2D offers various spring curves, from linear to exponential and logaritmic, so keeping it linear should keep things simple and compliant.

      I can't think of any reason it shouldn't work... but we'll soon see.

      Delete
    8. Can't be bothered to sign in !
      @ Vibe, good luck, it's all I can do to type with two fingers while looking at the keyboard ! :-D

      STEVO

      Delete
    9. The scale doesn't make any difference, Stevo. The weight values don't make any difference either, Vibe. The reason this doesn't work is because the forces balance after a few degrees, just like any other design that relies on forces alone for torque. That's why I think this isn't working; because the pendulums will not hang straight down from 12 to 3 and 3 to 6, even if it looks like they are. If they did, then there would be an imbalance of forces, and it would work. Trust me.

      Delete
    10. Doug,
      like all my hare-brained schemes, I put them out in the hope that some-one may tweak them.
      If Vibe doesn't mind spending time on the simulation, we might see a way to adapt the idea.
      Let's keep our fingers crossed.

      Delete
    11. The pendulums do indeed remain vertical - ist's simple leverage. Furthermore all of them can be linked by rigid rods, combining their leverage against the small weights.

      One of the things i like about this config is that, rather than 'pendulums' which would imply an oscillating swing between two maxima, the point of the large weights is to hang - a feature Fletcher has referred to as an 'artificial horizon' - which to me, are really just stators. Hanging stators.

      Bessler's apparent disavowal of stators is one of the things that really seems to limit the options... but does he actually say that? What he in fact says is that there is nothing hanging from his axle, and that everything must go around together. But here Stevo's stators hang from outer armatures, not from the axle, and do indeed "all go around together", in a way... they also retain the power of free motion, alternate between axle and rim positions and also 'swing', kinda - at least, relative to the rotating wheel.

      So it ticks lots of boxes, while possibly resolving one or two conundrums. This is all very encouraging...

      Spent hours this evening trying to do it with chains made from beads linked by short rods or ropes, but as i feared it's too computationally complex for WM2D, error prone and a slow running memory hog. But then i found a much simpler workaround, using pulleys without requiring spooling, thus circumventing the need for colliding chord.

      Will try again with this method tomorrow..

      Delete
    12. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I won't hold my breath. We know the forces are balanced on the side where the cords don't engage the pendulums. Since your model didn't work, we have to ask why,and the only reason is because the forces on the other side, the overbalancing side, must balance as well. You don't have to simulate this to know that's why it doesn't work.

      Delete
    13. Vibe,
      one thing I forgot to mention, the pendulums are not just a weight on a rod, they are cylindrical, and have a rod at each end, like a garden roller, so they roll on the rope easily.

      In a flight of fancy, I thought they might be slightly hour-glass shaped, so the cord stays in the middle, this would make it look like a juggler's diabolo, a child's game between columns ( spokes)
      Or, the game might be skipping, the rope passing under the weight, like a rope passing under the child's feet, also, skipping keeps a shadow-boxers feet fleet !
      Anyway time for bed, early start tomorrow, check in later.

      Delete
    14. @Doug - it's not that the simmed model doesn't work; rather, i've not yet been able to build such a sim. The simplest implementation seems to be the one Stevo's described, but it needs the hanging weights to contact and roll along the chords, and WM2D doesn't accomodate this - chords can have attachment points to solid objects at each end, but the body of the chord inbetween passes through objects without contacting them. This precludes simple spooling. I'm certain there's a way around this but i'm no expert at WM2D so it might take a while to figure out.

      But i disagree that the forces 'obviously' balance out - or else Stevo would have seen why, and so would i. Hence we have to take it to the next step - if it can't work, the reasons aren't yet clear, but certainly, if the sliding weight is retracted on one side and extended on the other, and the hanging masses are all the same weight and at equal radial distance, then they balance out, and the sliding weights don't.

      I think what you're missing is that the hanging weights can be much heavier than what is required to extend the sliding weights - arbitrarily so. Whereas the retraction springs only need enough energy to retract the sliding weights, and not the hanging weights that pull them out. This means the interaction's output energy needed to extend the sliding weights and cause the overbalance, is decoupled from its input energy needed to retract them again - an apparent asymmetry.

      But enough words - the description's simple enough to grasp, it's time to test it out.

      @Stevo - yep i totally get the principle, and if WM had a 3rd dimension to play with, and also modelled strig collisions, then these would be useful design considerations. Unfortunately, out-of-the-box WM doesn't offer any means of modelling contact between solid objects and strings. The string can only have fixture points at its ends, but the length inbetween simply passes through solid objects.

      So for example, WM2D cannot do this sort of thing:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpIrHU8r2UM&feature=related

      ...because it requires the string to contact the intervening mass. It likewise can't model a yo-yo, or any other type of spool.

      The workaround i've tried is to make a fine chain, made of small circles with short links of rope or rods, but this really pushes WM to its limits, and isn't really practical. It runs really slowly, because it requires stupendous accuracy settings, and still crashes constantly regardless.

      The alternative method i mentioned last night hasn't yet borne out either - my idea was to have a 3-way pulley, one end attached to the sliding weight, the middle attached to the hanging weight and the other end fixed to the rim. This works OK for the first 180° of rotation, but because the middle pulley is still attached to the hanging weight as it comes back up, it extends the sliding weight again, which of course we don't want.

      So i need more time to think through the options. If there was a way of doing it with cranks that might be easier, but again the issue remains of disconnecting the conrod during ascent.

      There's always the option of doing a quasi-static sim, doing away with the interconnections entirely and just modelling the fixed weight positions at regular increments - basically equivalent to doing it on the back of an envelope; but then we don't get to see a nice animation. Which would kind of defeat WM's whole purpose of producing a proper 'Working Model'... Hopefully it won't come to that.

      Delete
  21. I have seen many, many designs for imbalanced pm wheels that try to keep the center of mass of their internal weights on the wheel's descending side by moving descending side weights out toward the rim while simultaneously moving ascending side weights back toward the center. For this scheme to work, it is always necessary that the ascending side weights move outward before the drop to the level of the wheel's axle while the descending side weights move inward before they rise to the level of the axle. That continuous rising of weights then requires that they be supplied with energy. Many pm wheel builders assume, falsely, this energy will only be a small portion of the mechanical energy the wheel generates as it turns. Unfortunately, it is not. One quickly learns that, in order to keep his wheel's weights shifting continuously, all of the energy coming out of the wheel must be fed back into it and, in fact, a little more to supply the extra energy needed to overcome the air and bearing resistance the wheel experiences. So, if this is a "no win" situation, then how did Bessler's wheels manage to work? Well, they also moved descending side weights out toward the rim while ascending side weights moved inward toward the axle. But, his design did this in a unique way. In his design, there was a very delicate counter balancing of the ascending side weights that resulted in them being very easily shifted. This then allowed the collection of weights in his wheels to maintain an imbalanced state without having to use all of the mechanical energy produced by the wheel. That then left over some energy that could be used to activate various types of devices that were attached to a wheel's axle. You're now curious about all of the details of how Bessler's wheels did this? So am I and after searching a half century I still do not have all of the answers, but hope to soon. When the solution finally comes, it will be seen to be very simple, but require specially shaped parts and precise spring tensions in order to make it work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get what you're saying, but i'm increasingly certain this is precisely the kind of scheme Bessler warned us is a hiding to nowhere.

      If, as you describe, the extension occurs between 12 o'clock / 0° and 90°, and the retraction between 180° and 270°, then we have 90° of both positive and negative torque, and no gain.

      In a slight variation of the cycle you describe, we could imagine a system wherein the weights slide in and out moving purely horizontally - so no rotational lifts or drops are involved, as by levers, say. But the only system that allows such horizontal displacements is the Roberval mechanism, the whole point of which is that it remains balanced in spite of such horizontal displacements. This is the basic lesson of MT143.

      Bessler tells us both that his weights DO move in and out, swapping places in turn, but also that this alone is a futile approach. The only way to reconcile these claims is that these positions, and the torques they both produce and withdraw, are nonetheless incidental to the real modus operandi - the 'prime mover', which is the real prize. The weight displacements may provide the FORM of the torque, causing the rotation, but the energy requirements of these displacements must be met by some other factor that we're currently not seeing. A 'delicate counterbalancing' - or not so delicate, even - just seems too inherently elusive. Counterbalancing with more weights just compounds the problem - "you can keep adding weights here and there - with the only result that the wheel would run longer if it were empty!", and counterbalancing with springs just robs Peter to pay Paul. The way out of this vicious circle - the not-so-delicate counterbalancing measure, is nothing less than the very nub and gist of the whole problem; compared to which, the weight displacements are a mere sideshow... a beguiling distraction.

      Hopefully JC, Oystein, Fletcher or Silvertiger are finally dallying with the get-out clause..

      Delete
    2. In the case of Bessler's wheels, we have to stop thinking about weights sliding or rolling along radial rods or tracks between the axle and wheel periphery. His weights were attached to the ends of levers and could only move closer to the axle or rim because the lever they were on was swinging a little in those directions. But these swingings of a one direction wheel's eight levers had to be carefully coordinated and that's where layers of various interconnecting ropes acted between the levers. I now believe that I have the complete and accurate details of the lever shapes and their various coordinating ropes. I also believe I have the correct values for the spring constants of his springs. What I am currently struggling with is exactly how to attach the springs to the levers. Unfortunately, that must be determined by careful trial and error simulations and there are many places on a lever where a spring could be attached. If I hit the right spot then the design I have should work. It's almost like trying to tune a radio receiver so that a particular broadcasting station's carrier signal will come through at maximum strength. In the approach I use and believe Bessler used, it is the stretching of springs on the wheel's ascending side that acts as the "prime mover" and in other parts of the wheel provides the energy needed to keep shifting the levers so as to keep the center of mass of all of the weights and their levers on the wheel's descending side. That energy will, unlike in every other imbalanced pm wheel ever constructed, be less than the energy that the rotating wheel can supply to any machinery attached to its axle. I think Bessler's basic design is very simple, but it involves very precise placement of its parts, particularly the spring to lever attachments, in order to work. Of course, once the correct placements are found, they can also be used for wheels of various diameters using weights of different masses after appropriate adjustments are made to the spring constants of the springs being used.

      Delete
    3. Vibrator!

      With all due respect (and that is a very great deal) you stated thusly: '. . . . The only way to reconcile these claims is that these positions, and the torques they both produce and withdraw, are nonetheless incidental to the real modus operandi -. . . " and to which I would and do respond with a kindly meant 'not-so-fast' followed by the end of your sentence ". . . 'prime mover', which is the real prize. . . .", with which I agree wholeheartedly.

      But (grammatically incorrect) might we continue to labor hard to not forget "asymmetrical" and as well, "preponderance of weight" (Bessler's terminology as translated)?

      Some years back, over on BWF, Fletcher used the term "unstable platform," if I recall it correctly. (I think this was NOT within a private message but was rather within a public declaration.)

      Yes, of course that surely but, FIRST must come the perfectly STABLE one over the displacement of several of degrees . . . THEN any destabilization schemes.

      So-far as I am aware to-present, exterior-ally this first vital trick has YET to be done or, at least, I've never sensed that it has been aimed-for by any worker, as a first objective per se. You see?

      In studying over these many years of paying attention to matters-Besslerian (on-and-off, mostly the latter), I have concluded tentatively that, any idea as-to THE LIFT of any weights so as to secure imbalance continuously, from the outset, is one DOOMED to failure! (Multifarious results so-far prove this to be the case, but STILL it is tried!)

      Why this?

      It is simple . . .

      Because it is playing with Nature as a child might, according to Her rules solely, and not those of a veritably Supernatural creative power, such as is ours, if only we are to choose to use it, thinking this more of ourselves.

      (Here, naturally, the atheist might find him or herself down one-or-two conceptually, objecting, as if my suggestion were but driven, foolish nonsense,as might be easily supposed, this even though the ONE truly successful person - Bessler - believed AND FUNCTIONED contrarily to such scoffings. Well, in this at this juncture precisely, he and I are concordant perfectly.)

      No.

      Success will be had by creation of Bessler's destabilized, perfectly stabilized platform. (Many thanks going to Fletcher for introducing this concept and terminology to my very amateur notice long ago. Ever since it has been right there cooking away, doing it's intended work as knowledge is wont to do.)

      Do not play by Nature's rules and Noether's symmetries.

      If so, then success will surely manifest; if not, it won't. That simple.

      James

      Delete
    4. @James - appreciate your thoughts as ever, however the issues here are too ambiguous and open to different perspectives - i agree that attempting to re-lift the OB weights seems like a hiding to nowhere, but at the same time all the weights must travel the same distance up as down, hence DO get re-lifted. So the ambiguity is whether they're regarded as being lifted by the internal mechanism, or its resultant rotation of the wheel. Two different frames of reference, same net result.

      I agree the relationship betewen instability and stability is integral - stable internally, unstable externally seems implicit. Internal instability alone can produce PM in a lossless environment, but not excess energy.

      If you look at Stevo's latest offering, we seem to have just the right balance of factors here: internal stability, resulting in external instability, and coupled by an asymmetric leveraging of masses.

      If it works then the Noether exception would be that the stator weights are performing work during descent (by extending the sliding weights and pre-loading their retraction springs), but performing no work during ascent. Basically all the work required for ascent is banked during descent.

      I've always maintained though that looking exclusively for a time-dependent asymmetry might not be productive, and that even when a working mechanism is discovered, it might not be immediately clear how it constitutes such an exploit. Nevertheless, Noether's symmetries are such a fundamental catch-all that any workaround is, by definition, an exception - essentially, there has to be a change in the force parameters between input and output halves of the interaction; Stevo's hanging stators seem to be just the ticket - coupled to the OB weights on descent, then decoupled on ascent, but it remains to be seen if this is just a hole in my thinking rather than a gap in the door..

      Delete
    5. Just a brief addendum - to reiterate the conundrum; Bessler says that his driving weights alternate between axle and rim positions, however he ALSO says that "many would-be mobilists think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre, and others closer to it, then the thing will surely rotate" - the truth of which is a lesson he "learned through bitter experience".

      So the weights DO alternate between such positions, however this alone is not what causes the rotation. Rather, these positions are incidental to the cause of rotation.

      And Stevo's mechanism precisely resolves this apparent paradox. Yes, his driving weights alternate between axle and rim positions; "driving" insofar as it is their "preponderance" (resistance to lifting) that actuates the overbalancing weights. But it is the OB weights that cause the rotation, not the hanging weights alternating between inner and outer positions.

      This is profoundly encouraging - anyone not currently working on their own designs should be dropping everything to test Stevo's design here...

      Delete
    6. OK, good news first - found a way to do it; imagine 3 two-foot rulers, pivoted together end-to-end, with rotational springs in the pivots. So you end up with a 6-foot bendy stick - it wants to be straight, but will bend if a load's applied. Remove the load and it straightens again.

      So this bendy stick runs from the rim to the sliding weight in the center. The weight slides radially on a groove. With the stick straight, the weight's exactly in the center, over the axle. Sit a weight on the middle section of the stick and it bends, pulling the sliding weight outwards.

      Thus the pendulums hang next to these bendy sticks, and as the wheel rotates they land on them, deforming them, lifting out the central sliding weights.

      The bad news: unfortunately, as the pendulums collide with the bendy stick, raising the sliding weight, both gravity and the sprung tension being loaded into the springs act together to push the weight back down. This downwards force in turn pushes against the pendulums to cause a counter-torque.

      In effect, the wheel wants to run backwards as soon as it's lifted the central weights any distance - they want to both fall and be pushed (by the springs) back into the middle, and actually use the relative immobility of the pendulums to lever the wheel counter-clockwise as they push themselves back down, against it.

      What an utter b'stard eh?

      I won't bother with a video as, due to the high accuracy setting (1,000 frames / sec) it's like watching paint dry.

      If anyone wants the sim i'll post it up on BW forum. It's comprised of two such mechanisms 180° offset, with a rigid rod connecting the two hanging pendulums (combining their effect).

      Real pity - i liked this one and had high hopes for it... and i still regard it aas an ingenious design. The reason why it doesn't work is somewhat counter-intuitive - almost like pulling back the drawstring on a bow, only to find youself propelled forward by it before you can release the arrow.. however in this case, it's a 200 kg bow and you're standing on a rolling platform.. type stuff. Crap analogy but not too far off.

      @Stevo - sorry bruv, i'm sure you're all but immune to these let downs by now but FWIW i feel your frustration.. if you need any clarifications we can do an autopsy on BW forum with piccies and figures..

      Delete
    7. Vibe,
      thanks for the effort, I'm not ready to give up on this idea yet, simply because when I was using a nice flexible cord on my model, it performed exactly as expected, like I say, the problem I had was with the return elastic, relaxed, the elastic took up half the run space, and when stretched it didn't have much room left to move.
      I managed by sheer fluke to get it right on the first four sections, but couldn't get it right on the other four.
      Before I get too bogged down, the best thing I can do is to make a full 6ft. mechanism on a plank of wood, to see if it was just a fluke, or whether I can reproduce the action full scale.

      ONCE AGAIN, THANKS FOR YOUR EFFORT, I'LL BE IN TOUCH.

      Delete
    8. My pleasure, anything else i can do, just ask.

      Just a thought though - why so many mechanisms? In a frictionless model a single counterbalanced mechanism should auto-rotate. Two opposing ones all the moreso, and i'd've thought a four-way would be paying out nicely.

      If you're thinking along the lines that a 90° mechanism - having maximum torque at 3 o' clock - is needed to assist a 45° one at 01:30 - which is where i found minimum torque (basically a sticky spot) then i don't mind simming an 8-way model.

      I could also add more sections to the bendy sticks - they're basically leaf springs, and adding more sections, and also weakening their connecting springs, will make them more flexible. I kept the number of linkages to a minimum to stabilise the computational gremlins, but it could probably handle a few more; perhaps i wasn't getting enough displacement of the sliding weights? I'll keep tweaking the model over the next week, to see if i can at least replicate your results. A BWF thread might be worthwhile - we could keep it private if you prefer...

      I'll see what more i can do with it tomorrow evening..

      Delete
    9. OK, Vibe, thanks much for filling me in on these matters.

      (Below, following, I will address the issue of "storks' bills" with a few new thoughts.)

      - J.

      Delete
    10. Vibe,
      the reason I used eight mechanisms may be due to skewed thinking, when the first two opposing mechanisms moved 55 deg. from horizontal, I thought that would give a 10 deg. " overlap " for the next 45 deg. segment.
      I built the next segment, and it did indeed provided enough rotation for the second segment to pass the horizontal, and the first segments turned 110 deg.

      I think four mechanisms may work, but I'm not sure if there will be enough overbalance when the spokes turn from + to x , that's spoke positions, not positive / multiplied force !

      Just two mechanisms will balance out at the 6 / 12 O'clock positions.

      When I made my model, I just eyeballed everything to suit the scraps I was using, I'll try to make some meaningful measurements, and convert them to suit a 12 ft. wheel.

      Delete
    11. Vibe,
      I think I have a way to do away with the strings.
      Imagine the sliding weights as a long thin block, with a long slot in the middle, on the right hand side of the slot are cog teeth, but only in a certain portion.
      On the pivot end of the pendulum there is a cog wheel, once again, with teeth in the right position.
      As the wheel turns the two sets of teeth engage, and the small weight is moved, rack and pinion style.
      When the pendulum is at the 6 O'clock position, the sections with no teeth line up, and the spring pulls the weight in.
      The only problem with this is, that in the real world, when the pendulum is at 12 O'clock it will probably wobble, and not engage, don't know if you can " sim this out ".
      One bonus with this idea is that the return of the weights can be delayed until the 6 O'clock position.

      Delete
    12. Just uploaded a couple of vids:

      https://youtu.be/Uq7tUm1OBCA

      This is the model i did yesterday. As you can see, it starts from an OB position, the first pendulum having already extended its sliding weight. However this doesn't give it enough PE for the second pendulum to extend the 2nd sliding weight.

      Tonight, i re-did it with more spring link sections, and slightly longer pendulums - the idea being to drag the sliding weights further out, hopefully causing a greater OB torque. I also doubled the accuracy:

      https://youtu.be/eaS-PGdKIHY

      Weirdly though, for some reason this has had the opposite effect - there's a teeny CCW torque, but that's all.

      So not too sure what to make of it.. granted it differs from the exact implementation you described, but at its core it's still playing the same mass displacements off against each other.

      The sprung linkages are near-massless (comparable to lightweight string), the pendulums are 100kg and the sliding weights are 6kg. There's rotational dampers fitted to all the rotational springs, elsewise they just boing back and forth dementedly, so it has slight losses - however they're only incurred when there's movement, so this second sim isn't stationary cos' it's losing energy - rather, it's just all but balanced.

      I also tried it without the connecting rod linking the pendulums - it behaves in exactly the same way regardless - slight CCW torque, but that's all.

      Have to admit this isn't what i anticipated, far as i can see i expect there to be CW torque in the 2nd sim, too. But i've double-checked for errors and can't find any - indeed, if i stick an extra random weight to one side of the wheel it duly rotates in that direction... so it seems the software's working as it should.

      Make of it what you will... any alterations, just ask...

      Delete
    13. The rack and pinion version sounds promising - much simpler to sim..

      Tell you what, would you mind knocking up a quick sketch? Rough as you like, just to gimme an idea of the relative proportions and positions, so that we're more on the same page.

      I have some rack and pinion sets all ready to go, so this won't take long to do - will have a go at it tomorrow evening..

      Delete
    14. Vibe,
      been a bit busy, done one set of drawings, will do others asap.
      Couldn't access videos.
      How should I send when finished ?

      Delete
    15. Free image hosting - Postimage.org is a good one; no signup or login required..

      http://postimage.org/

      Dunno why the vids aren't working - YouTube can be a bit flaky sometimes - i made a channel just for these vids, here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrny-ysVxM-DSn3mh-R9Sww - they're currently the only two there..

      Delete
    16. Vibe,
      managed to access the videos, Test 1 was better than my string model !
      Try 4 mechanisms, like so, +, I bet it'll work.
      I wasn't joking about my computer skills, I wouldn't have a clue how to post an image.

      Delete
    17. Vibe,
      just some more thinking about test 1 video.
      With momentum, the overbalanced side of the wheel turned 135 deg. and then settled at 12 / 6 O'clock.
      If there are 4 mechanisms, 90 deg apart, relying on momentum might not cut it, although that may be the reason for the stampers, to give a little flick.
      However, if the " Famous Five " is used, there might be enough overlap in movement to make it work.
      Joining the pendulums together would also stabilize things somewhat, and make a nice pentagon to boot !
      Also it would add extra leverage from the pendulums not engaged, with a bit of tweaking the rods would look a lot like pantographs.

      Delete
    18. Hi Stevo, sorry for the delay, my bike's MOT is due next week so i've been busy banging the metal the past few days...

      I spent a few hours this afternoon doing a four-way sim, however the results are as i expected - it now nudges up against the sticky spot straight away - the problem is that for a working design, a single counter-balanced mechanism should be enough to produce an excess of energy.

      http://youtu.be/UszsvWeOGG4

      Adding more mechanisms will only add more energy if a single one does. If each mechanism isn't generating excess energy, then no amount of identical ones will change this, regardless of their relative angles.

      Just for your reference, the red sliding weights are 6kg, the green hanging ones are 100kg, the wheel they're attached to is just 10 kg, the blue bendy bars are only 100g each and all other constraints are massless. The wheel radius is 6 meters, and air resistance is disabled - the only mechanical losses are due to the dampers which provide just enough resistance to prevent the springs from going into a disruptive resonance (otherwise, with no loss mechanisms they'd just bounce back and forth forever instead of moving neatly in and out when required).

      The spring constants are all 1.5 N-m / ° and the dampers are 0.017 N-m-s / °.

      I've also tried raising the masses of the hanging weights to a ton, and also interlinking them with rigid rods as mentioned previously, none of which made any difference.

      So for now i think it'd be best to try and fully understand why the current iterations aren't working, to maybe try and come up with an alteration that might circumvent the problems..

      Best wishes,

      V.

      Delete
    19. Vibe,
      thanks once again, good luck with the MOT, over here my nephew owns the testing station, I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
      I think this is a situation where a physical model is better than a simulation.
      I have a solution to the elastic band problem, so I'll leave you alone while I do some tinkering.
      ONCE AGAIN CHEERS !

      Delete
    20. No worries and yes i think you're right, the sim's really struggling with the collision detection - i had to raise the accuracy to 2,000 FPS to prevent the hanging weights from sinking thru the blue bars, which is also why it runs so slowly. What you see in the vid is just the playback - the actual runtime was a lot longer! Reality calculates everything perfectly and at lightspeed so trumps simulation this time.

      I still think it's a smart approach tho - the hanging stators especially, since they provide an internal reference frame while remaining consistent with many of Bessler's clues - so do keep at it...

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

      Delete
    22. Got it, mailing you now..

      Delete
  22. John!... how do you know I have not made any progress?
    Do you think I would share my good stuff with you?
    I know you would not!
    Furthermore to cry wolf is something that is done with malicious intent.
    Never mind the bragging, I think we are all guilty of that from time to time, if you can call the enthusiastic posts as such.
    It seems to me that if you can keep a sense of humour, the membership of this blog and Besslerwheel forum would improve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor, if I didn't have sense of humour I'd have slagged you off a long time ago. I admit I have been tempted to do so several times, but then I managed to restrain myself, but may I say that, along with many others, I find you self-absorbed, smug, arrogant and very patronising.

      You clearly don' t have clue about Bessler's wheel and never have had. You say you have good stuff, but obviously you haven't otherwise you would have succeeded by now, after almost two years of constant bragging that you are only days away from a working wheel.

      JC

      Delete
  23. This is a brilliant blog at times, there's often talk about making a film about Bessler. John I think you should make one about this site, it's like Wacky Races,

    ReplyDelete
  24. There you go again, you missed the point entirely.
    That post was not a brag, it was declaration on behalf of you and all the other optimistic wheel makers, to the effect that it would be solved soon.
    I can only conclude that you are only incensed by the fact that someone who has come from nowhere without having any written any books should have a record number of views on BWF.
    But take heart, because I don't take the credit for that, it is just an indication that people are dying for this mystery to be solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your conclusion is clueless, Trevor. I don't care about how many views I've had on BWF, although you obviously do. The vast majority haven't written any books either.

      I am not incensed by either your utter inability to see yourself as other see you, nor your complete indifference to it, but I admit to being bewildered by it.

      JC

      Delete
  25. At any time of the day or night, worldwide, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of imbalanced pm wheel builders that are only a "few days" away from what they are 150% will be a working design. This "persistent" delusion is actually the norm for this subject and probably has been since the wheel was invented tens of thousands of years ago! Because of this I try not to be too harsh on anyone who proudly announces that he / she has finally got it all figured out. Of course, it would be nice, occasionally, to actually see one of them later post that, no, he / she has had yet another failure and why it failed. As Edison once observed, I think, we can often learn more from our failures than from our successes. Right now I know exactly why my designs are failing. My problem, as always, is finding a solution that will allow them to work. I have the same problem that Bessler had, but he, obviously, found a way to compensate for it that was "so simple a carpenter's boy could understand and build the mechanism after studying it for a while". Without having the actual mechanism to view, we are at a disadvantage to the carpenter's boy and must rely upon what few written descriptions of tests we have along with the various "clues" we believe that Bessler left us. However, I firmly believe a solution is still possible even with such fragmentary and ambiguous data, but it will take an enormous amount of work. Just philosophizing about it or making random sketches will not be sufficient. One must actually be building something, either virtually or in reality, and constantly running tests of its performance. Then, with a tremendous amount of luck, someone will finally stumble across the actual mechanism Bessler used and a working replica will result. I'm trying something now which is starting to look a exciting. It's a particular combination of two springs on each lever that, at least initially, is allowing my lever that travels from the 9:00 to the 10:30 position of the drum to very easily be lifted throughout the arc of its shift that moves its end weight closer to the drum's rim. I'm still testing it and, dare I say it, I should know in a "few days" if this is finally "it"!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks Ken , you are full of Grace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am with you on this one, Trevor, he is that but . . .

      as well is a past-master-undoubtable, of circumlocutius redundancy:

      "Right now I know exactly why my designs are failing. My problem, as always, is finding a solution that will allow them to work."

      He cannot find a right solution leading to self-actuation but now knows why because he cannot, etc.

      To us this is all new, and good and useful to now know.

      Take care Trevor ("the good").

      James

      PS Why is the other Trevor not referred-to in an equally delightful way? I really don't know but would like to.

      Delete
  27. so I associated the
    Oj szalała,szalała
    oj rybeńka za wodą.....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ck-nkwWpbE

    ReplyDelete
  28. John, I sure do understand about BWF seemingly slowing down to molto largo whereas before, only a few years ago, it was presto capriccio sure. Also, there is the issue of the Rule of the Elites with the greenie rep system. They work hard to keep unworthies down and out, and Fivers nice and exclusive - snobby - and I am sure they like this power they wield, in a sneaky, dirty sort of way. Some of the truly decent ones bowed out of the low-level madness awhile ago, while the gettin' was good to, skins being still intact. Too bad.

    We'll see what the next ten years are to bring.

    - James

    ReplyDelete
  29. STORKS' BILLS aka student's forceps - - -

    Really, do these look like bills of storks or forceps for students? Also - and why would a student need to have such oddities at-hand, for what, grasping of the girls (or boys, depending) for some safe distance?

    Well, no matter what the true answers may be to such weighty conundrums, Bessler did use these weird appearing things in rather many of his drawings within MT.

    Being so very multiple-jointed as they are, such weirditites are guaranteed to be energy eaters, so, why of them did he make capital?

    A few weeks ago, over at BWF, I speculated that they might be symbolic of some other thing(s), and suggested energy per se or acceleration, maybe.

    Now, having thought further some, I believe they may have represented 'super leverage', this sort of rare creature being made to create a condition of perfect elasticity AND perfect inelasticity all-in-one device! Of course this seems like a nonsensical contradiction of conditions, that is unless thought about further.

    S'Gravesande would have understood immediately, about such a device's utility, and, I think Bessler knew all about them, and so made them appear as the items just listed above so as to impart the just-right impression upon some knowing, future smart-set viewer.

    Instantaneous transmission of momentum between bodies in and not in motion must be effected but, HOW to do it sans unacceptable losses?

    Well, by means of just such a device as a 'super lever' as Bessler likely used for if otherwise, none of his wheely things of themselves would have turned in the least, and we would now be pursuing the common-mundane, which is no fun.

    - James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree James, stork's bill doesn't do it for me. Scissor jacks and even pantographs are synonyms for something we find hard to describe. Expanding/contracting linkage? Bit of a mouthful.

      I am using one in my own wheel design, although previously I saw no advantage in using it, now I do.

      JC

      Delete
  30. The reason they want the discoverer to try to patent it is so they can have it censored for national security, for example never once have the government agents on the BW forum suggested that it would be a scientific discovery that should be recorded in a scientific manner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if you are wrong, and I don't think you are, it makes sense to avoid that route, just in case you are right!

      JC

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

      Delete

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...