Monday, 6 April 2015

How will you choose a verifier of high repute?

Recent discussions on the Besslerwheel Forum have revealed a minor conundrum.  One member has assured us that his wheel works and as proof he will take a video of it running, albeit with covers over the sides to prevent us from seeing how it works.  As proof that the video is genuine he says that he will include other devices running at the same time. Leaving aside the question of trust, it seems to me that such a demonstration would prove pointless anyway.  If no one can see how the wheel works, how are they to judge it?  All that will be visible will be the speed and regularity (or not) of the spinning device. No matter how you try to prove the wheel is the genuine article there is no way to establish its validity unless someone can see it, understand how it works and vouch for it.

The question then arises, who might be the most suitable person to provide his assurance that the wheel is genuine?  It is critical that an independent examination is carried out by someone who has no personal interest in the demonstration and is seen to be impartial.  This rules out family connections, employment relations, patrons, friends, others with an interest in the device, potential buyers, financially interested people and the majority of members of the forum, including myself.  Obviously he would require expertise in the subject.

Johann Bessler had exactly the same problem.  He tried to prove the wheel did work as he claimed by demonstrating a number of tests that he and Gottfried Leibniz thought were compelling at least if not irrefutable.  He also sought the most reliable and trusted person possible, to validate his machine, a man of unblemished reputation and one held in the highest respect by other rulers and their subjects. Despite this, the modern world seeks to tarnish Karl the Landgrave of Hessen Kassel's reputation by casting doubt on his honour, trying, it seems to me, to find a chink in the armour of good solid, but circumstantial evidence in favour of Bessler's wheel.

At that time the most sensible suggestion was that another ruler hold a sum of money equal to the price Bessler demanded for his secret, in escrow pending the verification of the wheel.  An escrow is a deposit of funds, a deed or other instrument by one party for the delivery to another party upon completion of a particular condition or event.  That the suggestion failed was partly down to the chosen escrow holder taking offence at a related matter and partly down to the fact that Bessler did not trust anyone.

Even if the escrow arrangement had been accomplished, a reputable person would then have to be found who could verify or not the wheel's behaviour and then inform the escrow holder so that the money could have been handed over.  But one person of unimpeachable reputation had already given the wheel his seal of approval, Karl who insisted that he must verify Bessler's claims before agreeing to provide his patronage in the form of employment, room and board for Bessler and his family.

It seems to me that trying to do the same thing today would be just as fraught with difficulties as Bessler discovered. There will always be a feeling that some agreement has compromised the reliability of the verification.  There are however, some excellent forum members who I would trust absolutely, but perhaps like me, they would prefer not be involves in such an important role.

I should point out here, that I am completely against patenting the device because I think it's a waste of time and money.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

43 comments:

  1. Hi John, surely the potential market for the Bessel wheel lies in its reliability and the product it produces for you.
    Who cares what is under the hood so long as it gives me what is advertised I don't even need to know how it works!
    The only problem left would be the protection of the rights to ownership of the production.
    Bessler's only solution was to take a one of lump sum and allow anyone and everyone to produce it, because the wheel mechanism was so easy to duplicate.
    Ideally, if we could trust the governments of this world to pay for the rights to manufacture, that could also work, but that is not real world of today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People do care what is under the hood Trevor, otherwise your spinning wheel with the covered side panels would sell, likewise Bessler's would have. People have been taught for generations that what Bessler did is impossible so they will need proof that your wheel and mine work. Personally I have no interest in the rights of ownership as long as I can get some kind of financial reward, preferably in a lump sum ,like Bessler, then I shall be content.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Hi John,
      Can you say how much is a lump sum that you personally would be happy with?

      Delete
    3. Oh that's a hard one, Uneqk! It depends on what's on offer. One million would be nice but two would be better!

      JC

      Delete
    4. I understand you would get a Million for the Nobel prize (only guessing)

      But without trying to protect it, Who in there right mind is going to part with one or two Million

      Delete
    5. I misunderstood the question Uneqk, I was referring to the mount of money generated by books, videos and interviews.

      JC

      Delete
  2. If my tests were to prove successful, then my go to guys would be Donald Simanek, Eric Krieg, and the James Randi Educational Foundation. I'd even try to collect some cash from the last two on the list. I'd turn skeptics into believers and make them my own proselytes even while taking their money to cover my patenting expenses and to perhaps fund some further research and development.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes demonstrate the covered wheel to witnesses, the other thing to do is drawings with clues in them as to how it works, any drawings of a working mechanism should be burned or buried and if anyone gets too close to the wheel trying to find out how it works then smash it to pieces with an axe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Youtube is filled with videos of "working" pm devices. Practically all of these are deliberate fakes. Anyone with a video camera and a wheel with a "cloaked" mechanism can keep the wheel turning with a hidden jet of compressed air that does not show up in the video. There is no need to pick anyone to verify the authenticity of any such claimed device. It will be automatically done when the person attempts to patent it. Just as soon as he claims it is pm, he will have to provide the Patent Office (at least in the US!) with a working model. You can be sure it won't get that far.

    If I am lucky enough to find Bessler's secret pm mechanism, I will not be worrying about trying to build a working model of it to prove it works. I will leave that to others who are better equipped than I to complete the task. The working pm wheel that results will not be patentable because I will already have revealed the design which I will also state is not my invention. I am inventing nothing, only trying to reveal what someone else invented three centuries ago.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You don't even need to prove the wheel is genuine, just sell the commodity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless it is genuine, there won't be any "commodity" to sell! All that will be sold for real money will be empty promises and rosy projections. The history of pm is filled with this and it's still the same story today. A genuine pm invention that actually produces significant energy will sell itself. It won't need to be promoted because investors will seek it out and be eager to invest in it.

      Delete
  6. If you think about it, isn't it a shame, that in today's world, such a person of good character is hard to find.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course, you're right Ken, it will sell itself and that is my point exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John wrote: "...I am completely against patenting the device because I think it's a waste of time and money."

    If you actually have Bessler's secret pm mechanism and you decided to patent it, then you be trying to patent someone else's invention! The only way you could patent it would be if you claimed it was not Bessler's invention and if no one else came forth that could prove that it was. But, like me, you are searching for Bessler's design and not some other pm machine. That puts us in a rather awkward position. We can not patent it ever! But that's okay with me because I'd rather not get involved in the expense of obtaining a patent and then hoping that I could make enough money off of the device to recover costs.

    Although I have stated that I do not believe Bessler's wheels would make a commercially suitable power source for the modern world, it still might be possible to make some money off of them. For example, one could take advance orders for the wheels and then have hired craftsmen produce working versions. These would be shipped to people who just wanted to have them as collector's items or works of art. There are probably thousands of such individuals out there right now who would be willing to pay, say, up the $10,000 dollars for such an "object de arte". Of course, they would have to be well constructed and capable of running, non stop, for several months before routine maintenance was necessary. There's also the possibility that by studying one of these Bessler duplicates, inventors would get ideas about how to improve their power output and those ideas might lead to future patents and designs that would make suitable power supplies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is for both Ken and John,
      First there are no drawings or video or exact first hand accounts of the workings of Besslers wheel. so to say you are patenting someone else s invention is ludicrous, he simply proved it could be done, not how and to most of the world it is of question that he did it at all. Thus a patent would be for your own unique work having designed it with nothing more than a hope and a prayer for actual design knowledge pertaining to the wheel.
      I have patent a tool I invented and it is expensive, but at less than $10,000 USD, it is cheap to protect your intellectual knowledge of something worth so much.
      Next, it will be of tremendous value, Even if it is as lame as Ken says, a machine that you don't have to feed i.e.(fuel) or dispose of i.e. (nuclear) at high reoccurring cost makes even the most inefficient wheel attractive as a totally green energy source. Although I think Ken is way off on its power output, it would have low horse power but extremely high torque.
      The proper route to proving it in my mind is to, first patent it, then show the world, have every clergy person legislator and professor you can convince to come see it sign a letter of verification. The problem with something of this sort, is that the patent office may try to disqualify it thinking it another crack pot PM machine, if it has been on TV and backed up by a hundred affidavits from distinguished people they can't refuse it.

      Then comes the money, (and clean air for generations to come), and more money.
      Thanks, Bob

      Delete
    2. Hi bob,

      You are spot on, without a Patent you have nothing.

      Delete
    3. Bob wrote: "... so to say you are patenting someone else's invention is ludicrous, he simply proved it could be done, not how and to most of the world it is of question that he did it at all. "

      But, John, I, and many others here are following what we believe are specific clues that Bessler left to guide future inventors toward resurrecting his wheels. However, the sets of clues we follow are not the same. Just as soon as one of those sets leads to a working wheel, that will confirm the validity and, more importantly, the existence of those clues which, obviously, were published about three centuries ago. With these clues previously published, practically any Patent Office would have to consider the invention to be "in the public domain" and, therefore, not patentable. Of course, someone may come up with a design whose specifications are not contained in the Bessler writings or anywhere else and that design certainly would be patentable. While that could happen (and I believe that it probably has several times in history), I would consider it to be extremely improbable. But, like they say with the lotteries, "You gotta be in it to win it" so I would never discourage anyone from pursuing pm even if they are not students of Bessler's wheels. The secret to finding pm, imo, is to find a delicate balance among weights that places their center of mass to one side of a wheel's axle and keeps it there as the wheel rotates. In other words, the arrangement of weights must resist being pushed out of its equilibrium state as the wheel rotates. Bessler's design, I believe, worked in exactly this way. It is only possible through the very skillful use of spring tension on interconnected levers each of which carries a weight as its free end.


      Delete
  9. Is unlimited free energy for life nothing ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Patent all you want, the Chinese will totally ignore it, change your design slightly, and flood the market with cheap, inferior copies.
    Just ask Trevor Bayliss, of clockwork radio fame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Granted the Chinese have a bad record when it comes to respecting intellectual property rights. But, if they openly stole some new and revolutionary free energy device design, I think that the World Trade Organization would come down hard on them. They would then have to cease and desist or work out some financial arrangement with the inventor(s). As far as Bessler's wheels are concerned, they would just be manufacturing a 300 year old invention at an affordable price for collectors and fans of the man. While many people would gladly pay $10,000 for a quality replica of one of Bessler's wheels, the far larger portion might only be able to afford to pay a few hundred for a reduced scale model. At least the Chinese would be promoting interest in Bessler and helping to stimulate interest in the subject of pm devices.

      Delete
  11. I think John has given too much away on this blog and now it is just too easy to solve .

    ReplyDelete
  12. You just gave away far too much information and now people are coming on here saying they have it, ni ni ha ha I'm patenting ha ha and to hell with everyone else ha ha haaaahhh .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess they've all decoded "10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’." and are now building pm wheels based on this "principle" John discovered. Yeah, he never should have put that on his blog. Well, there goes the fortune that he surely would have realized if only he had kept mum about the whole matter.

      Delete
    2. Gosh darn it! Why did I put such a simple clue there? Now everyone will be able to make Bessler's wheel. LOL!

      Delete
  13. All of those gravity wheels in your home / shop starting to take up too much room? The solution is simple: make them smaller...a lot smaller as this guy did:

    https://youtu.be/ZYmbCKrWQS4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How I am supposed to tune into the motion if the wheel is that small .

      Delete
    2. You'll need a really big magnifying glass! Actually, however, if one has the correct design, then it should not matter how small a wheel is. It should still work.

      Delete
  14. Stevo,
    I actually visited Trevor Bayliss shortly after the development of his clockwork radio when he stayed on Eel-Pie island on the Thames river in London in 1996. Sad to hear if things turned sour for him. His clockwork radio was first developed (manufactured) in Cape Town, South Africa.
    I had though of a wind-up torch and was quite astounded to hear that someone had already conceived of the same principal in the form of a radio. He wished me well and I thanked him. He has to be really old now. He was real likable fellow with an unreserved sense of humor. While I was chatting to him he told me that the next great event in his life was his funeral. I love to hear that he is still well.

    I wouldn't patent the wheel.

    Zhyyra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zhyyra,
      I bought both the torchlight, and the radio, unfortunately I lent the light to someone, and they broke it.
      The radio however is still going strong 15 years on, I live in a hurricane zone and it is a real lifesaver, once a hurricane strikes, there's no TV, no shops open to buy batteries, it really keeps us in touch with all the news and government warnings. I love that machine !

      Delete
  15. First having followed "clues" is not evidence of design, so your research would be irrelevant to a patent office. I personally believe that Bessler would not have left valid clues, simply because he didn't want anyone to make it, it's like chasing the wind, you'll never catch it. Believe in yourselves and design it and build it, that's what I do and I believe I am close.
    As far as patenting, one must if they truly want this to propagate. Corporations don't spend money to make things unless they are sure of ownership. So they would be happy licensing it as apposed to just building it and spending millions, just to find out someone has claim to it. Besides if you design it you should reap the rewards even if you just give it all away to charity.
    Again I have patents and have a patent in China, I know the reality not hearsay, China is reluctant to enforce non-Chinese patents, so get a Chinese patent, they are cheaper than US patents and they do enforce them, I have one for a tool I invented.
    My opinion is that BIG wheels are better, they are more forgiving to build and give you room to make things move, I realize not everyone has the room, but go big or go home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bessler's clues (the ones I've found, that is!) are equivalent to a schematic or blueprint. I don't believe a Patent Office would just dismiss them as readily as you suggest. Anyway, like John, I see no point in trying to patent Bessler's design. It is his design and he should get the credit for it. It's just too bad that he could not have gotten a bigger reward for his efforts during his life. I don't think corporations will have any interest in manufacturing Bessler's wheels as they were. However, they might be interested in trying to improve their power output. Maybe. Personally, I still believe that the first truly commercial "overunity" devices will be permanent magnet motors and, perhaps, self reinforcing electrical circuits.

      Delete
  16. I'm up early this morning and we're having some really nasty weather in my area. Perfect time to work on my wm2d models of Bessler's wheels. I just tested model #1130 and...failure. So what else is new? Still the same problem. My weight carrying levers all shift nicely together, but not fast enough to keep their center of mass on the wheel's descending side during a 45 degree segment of rotation. Very frustrating, but it only indicates that my springs to the levers are not right yet. As I mentioned elsewhere, I am now very convinced that each lever was attached by two springs to the wheel's drum. I believe that I have the correct details for one of those springs, but not the other yet. If I get the correct placement for that second spring, then something magical should happen: I'll run the simulation and the center of mass will just sit there near its starting location on the descending side as the drum turns around it. Once I see that, it will be time to celebrate. Of course, I will announce it here first. My current wm2d design is for a three foot diameter wheel which is the same size as the small prototype that Bessler found success with in Gera. Once I'm sure I have the correct design, I will then immediately make a 12 foot diameter wheel and scale up the masses of the weights and the constants for the lever springs. If that model works as does the smaller one, then I will have no doubt that, finally, I've successfully reverse engineered Bessler's wheels. There are a few other details involved in the construction of his two direction wheels, but they tend to be trivial compared to the main problem of determining just how he managed to get his "weights which hang below" to "rise in a flash". I think I'm very close at this point. But, I've had that feeling before only to be bitterly disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You wouldn't have to choose anyone if you had a useful invention. You simply apply for a patent, and the officer becomes your verifier of high repute. Of course, you have to have a physically working model of a gravity wheel to show the officer. Words on a page aren't useful. A simulation isn't useful. The official rejection without a model is 'incredible utility'. No one would be rejected for any similarity to Bessler's descriptions of his wheels. There wouldn't be any way to prove similarity, since no one knows what they did.
    His design never received a patent. If it had, his beneficiaries would have to renew the patent every so often.

    A simulation isn't useful because you can do things in sim world that can't happen in nature. So if Ken, for instance, sees the center of mass remaining in place as the drum turns around it, it's either a condition or parameter he set that wouldn't occur in nature, or a bug in the program. Most likely the former.
    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After 1130 models so far, I have yet to see a single "bug" in any of the models that caused the center of mass of the weights and levers to remain stationary. Quite the contrary, the centers of mass seem to be exquisitely sensitive the motions of the wheel's components. Changing component parameters seems to affect the rate at which the center sinks to an equilibrium position below the axle, but it never fully prevents it. I'm convinced, however, that one specific set of component parameters, the unique one's Bessler found and whose values he encoded into his DT clues, will prevent this pm destroying motion. I shall press on, but, if I hit model #1200 without success, then even I will have to finally admit that I've been chasing a wild goose. Then, it's time to retire and wish everyone else the best. Hoping that does not happen.

      Delete
    2. Software programs can contain bugs, a term that refers to errors in the programming. Not bugs in any of your models. If a programmer wrote software to model perpetual motion, it would be considered a bug in the program. Do you see the difference?

      Delete
    3. I believe that wm2d will show pm if it's truly present. However, I am aware that there are situation in which this modeling/sim software will show pm when it's not truly present. Ultimately, the test of whether pm is truly present must be determined by a physical build. I will not present any design for the secret mechanism Bessler used that I've found unless I have given it every possible test to eliminate the possibility that it's only showing pm because of a software glitch. Of course, even then there are no guarantees. But, I believe, despite these limitations, it is still better to have a very promising design to follow then no design at all. If I am fortunate to find what I believe and am highly convinced is Bessler's design, I will present it with the above caveats as well. The highest recommendation I could give it or any design is that, if I was to attempt a physical build, then that design is the one I would use.

      Delete
  18. There is a brown dwarf star coming into the solar system, it is going to cause solar activity which will affect electronics on earth, most of our technology will probably not be operable after it happens .
    If we had the Bessler wheel we might have a hope of surviving, otherwise humanity and all life on earth is prgoing to become extinct .
    There is not enough time for a Bessler wheel to sit in a patent office for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its coming next year, the mayan calender was 5 years out of sync, the brown dwarf is coming through in 2017 and it will be visible next year .

      Delete
    2. I'm not worried. The space aliens that monitor and protect life on Earth will use their advanced technology to hurl that celestial intruder into a region of space where it will not pose a hazard to inhabited star systems (that's about half of the stars visible in the night sky) and will eventually exit our galaxy and, finally, harmlessly burn itself out. So, everybody can just relax and party on. Our "space brothers" have the situation under control.

      Delete
    3. No they will not and also they will not stop all the nuclear power stations from melting down when it happens.
      In a few years this will be an uninhabitable planet .
      And all because of greed .

      Delete
    4. The end is nigh.

      Delete
    5. And on that depressing note let's leave this subject and see what's new!

      JC

      Delete
    6. Hopefully, in a few more years we will have operational fusion reactors that can supply us with the power needed to survive just in case our space brothers can not prevent the destruction of our solar system by the rogue brown dwarf star that is coming. If worse comes to worst, our space brothers will be able to evacuate humanity to another habitable Earth-like planet in our galaxy. Might not be a bad idea because we will be able to start out with a fresh atmosphere and, this time, not pollute it all up like we did with our current one. Lesson hopefully learned.

      Delete

Johann Bessler’s Legacies.

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