Monday, 25 May 2015

An interesting paradox - what is right?

I have spent most of my life researching the legend of Bessler's wheel and I am convinced that his claims were genuine, But even I, have on occasion wondered if I have been fooled by an accomplished swindler.  Could it be that, despite all the circumstantial evidence that seemed to show that the machine was genuine and nobody lied, actually one or more people did lie?  After all it is being constantly rammed down our throats that Bessler's wheel is and was impossible and we are all fools for being easily deceived.

To get to the truth, only two people need concern us; Johann Bessler himself and Karl the Landgrave of Hesse who saw the inside of the machine and confirmed that it was genuine.  How can we tell if either or both lied?

If Bessler lied then he was taking an almighty risk.   He had engaged the attention of several people of high reputation and standing within three Princedoms. In each case he requested and received official examinations of his machine in front of Ministers, Clerks of the Court and religious leaders and of course the ruling Prince or members of his family. Any hint of duplicity and Bessler would face imprisonment and possibly execution as a deterrent to others.  He stated in his Apologia Poetica that if he was found to have lied he should be beheaded.

To secure their territory against attackers, usurpers and law breakers, the Princes dispensed justice swiftly and violently. Executions were public spectacles involving cruel methods. In addition, capital punishment was not reserved solely for the most serious crimes. Death was the penalty for a variety of minor offenses.  Bessler must have believed that he would be executed if he was found to be lying, so it seems obvious to me that he only told the truth about his machine.

One form of execution popular in Germany was the breaking wheel.  It was also known as the Catherine wheel or simply the wheel.  'It was a torture device used for capital punishment from Antiquity into early modern times for public execution by breaking the criminal's bones/bludgeoning him to death. As a form of execution, it was used from "Classical" times into the 18th century; as a form of post mortem punishment of the criminal, the wheel was still in use into 19th-century Germany.'  I can imagine someone might find that means of execution highly appropriate! See

But if, for the sake of argument, we assumed he lied, how was he expecting to get his financial reward and leave without being arrested and thrown in jail?  He couldn't just run; the deal was that the buyer and the seller sit around a table and the purchaser puts a bag of money on the table and takes the wheel.  It seems to me that it would have been impossible for Bessler to leave without the wheel being opened and inspected and verified.  This thought must have been considered, before he went ahead with the negotiations.

All the above notwithstanding, if Bessler had lied then either he fooled Karl or Karl lied too.  Yet we know from well-documented history that Karl was regarded as an honest man of tremendous integrity.  He was in constant touch with the Kings of England, Sweden and Prussia, acting as an honest broker attempting to negotiate peace between these warring nations.  He was also known for his patronage of the latest scientific experiments.  He supported Dennis Papin in his steam powered experiments for several years and also financed a number of other fields of research.  This man was no fool and would have thoroughly scrutinised Bessler's wheel before giving it his approval.

So we know that Karl did not lie either, but let us again suppose that he did, just for arguments's sake. If Karl lied then he must have foreseen that at some point someone would offer to buy the wheel.  If the machine was a fake that fact would soon emerge and Karl would be found out, along with his accomplice, Bessler.  His reputation would be gone, his status as an honest broker ruined, his family the laughing stock of Europe.  It simply does not make sense.

We are left with a paradox; the wheel worked as Bessler claimed, but the laws of physics as they are currently understood say that it is impossible for a wheel to rotate continuously under the influence of gravity alone.  Bessler told the truth therefore the laws of physics are wrong on this point at least.




  1. As I've stated several times before, I, too, consider it preposterous that Bessler was lying and that Count Karl was also either lying or had been duped into thinking he was seeing a genuine pm wheel. Bessler and Karl were both telling the truth and the wheels did not violate any of our currently known laws of physics. Of course, three centuries ago, they would certainly have seemed to be violating their then known laws of physics. Weights moving around a closed path in a gravity field are not supposed to lose any net energy after each completed circuit, but along comes Bessler's wheels whose weights are apparently are doing just that! Three centuries ago, they had no inkling of the enormous amount of energy represented by the weights in Bessler's wheels or how a perpetually imbalanced arrangement of them could continuously extract that energy to perform work in a wheel's environment.

    The controversy concerning Bessler's wheels will, no doubt, continue right up to the point where they are successfully duplicated (hopefully soon!). At that time there will still be a few skeptics that will emerge to claim that the announcement of these devices is all a hoax. It could take years more before they are all finally silenced and "converted" into believers. Keep the faith...a generally acceptable solution to the Bessler wheel mystery is not far off.

  2. "therefore the laws of physics are wrong"
    Rather than wrong,best to say incomplete coz if you are right then there will be upheaval and they don't like it up 'em Captain Mainwaring, they don't.

  3. K.B., is it now to be back to this original old theory about masses' energy conversions? After all this time, is that all you have explanation-wise?

    And, Anonymous, yes in such a case there would be "upheaval" regarding any laws that stood contrarily to an actual observed phenomenon such as a gravity-only actuated device. This is a risky realm that we inhabit. Coming into it there are no guarantees of a pleasant journey through it, nor equality of abilities or appearance, and this goes IN SPADES for the lab-coated regime of breathtaking arrogance and pride.

    (Do we NOT know of the demeanor and destructive actions of the trio of "Hell hornets" namely Wagner, Borlach and that other? Well, these were but prototypes for the sorts we have now as multiplied by tens of thousands!)

    When the Wright brothers demonstrated powered, heavier-than-air flight back in 1903, the scientists of that time were all disbelief. It required our first President Roosevelt to knock their butts off their high perches of self-admiration and congratulation, in order to progress, this being to the main purpose of 'national security' or weaponry as put-to-air, then all the rest. (For, after all, there was a world war in the offing as planned.)

    A tangible appearance of converters of gravitational force into useable torque will be upsetting to very many and, I would not be surprised in-the-least if interdictions were attempted in order to turn the tide of New Power Progress for narrow, selfish purpose.

    This last is THE WAY of this flawed old world, as operated by homo sapiens.


  4. Do we realy know how many effects are in our real physical world!? Is there possibilty that we have not found all of them!? Have we used or tested all known different effects in criss-cross manner, combined with each other!? All of them in any possible manner ... I think here that not! Because amout of tests will be tremendious. And even we got right buildup, do we use this in right goal/purpose - to buid the wheel.
    Even the Bessler wheel buildup was simple, there need to be also much luck to discover and understand possible right combination.
    When look, how many "builders" try to reproduce this wheel, at now days. I belive that someone have all ready been made right buildup, but somewhere in this build is "small" mistake. Example springs are not connected to right place or system is not combined in right angle to axis or builder try to simplify too much the mechanism ...
    Even when Bessler takes his original wheel to first primary parts and gives those parts to us, saying - "Hey, here it is ... Now, build it up for me!". I belive here, that there is hundreds (or even thousands) of possibilities to put it to gether in wrong way.


  5. Ken's conception of mass-energy conversion has the advantage not to be in conflict with the laws of physics. Why rejecting it? For now, it is easier to present an orffyrean wheel as a mass-energy converter than as a 'perpetuum mobile'. There would be no more paradox at all!

    1. Many perpetual motion seekers will have difficulty with the "mass diminution hypothesis" for explaining where Bessler's wheels obtained the mechanical energies they were able to output. That says more about their unfamiliarity with 20th century physics then it does about the validity of the hypothesis. His wheels had to get their energy from somewhere since it was not being provided by wound up mainsprings inside of their drums or any external sources. If one computes the energy represented by the mass of a 4 lb weight, he will be astounded. It's literally enough to propel an aircraft carrier around the world several times! Fortunately, Bessler's wheels only extracted the energies of their weights and levers at a safe rate. However, unfortunately, that rate was too low to make the machines serious power sources that could compete with things like windmills, waterwheels, and steam engines.

      This morning I finished the testing of model # 1155 and it failed. But, once again, I immediately began setting up the next model which will use springs with slightly lower spring constants. # 1155 had its ascending side weights rising so fast that they actually pulled other levers totally out of synchronization and made the center of mass of the weights and levers fly all over the place. Unacceptable! When the spring constant is correct, the center of mass should remain almost motionless at a fixed position on the wheel's descending side. Only the steady acceleration of a wheel toward its maximum speed will then cause that center to slowly swing down around the axle toward the dreaded "punctum quietus" or the point directly vertically below the center of the axle at which time there will be no net torque acting on the axle. Bessler assured us that his design always prevented the center of mass of its weights and levers from ever reaching the punctum quietus. Thus, his one direction wheels were always out of balance and their axles had some driving torque, even if very small, acting on them. This means that it was physically impossible for one of his wheels to accelerate to the speed where all of its weights would be pinned against their wooden stops on the drum's rim which would then cause the center of mass the weights and levers to retreat to the center of the axle and, thus, produce no torque on the axle. There was an exception to this, however. That exception occurred when a one directional wheel inside of a two direction wheel was forced to rotate in the opposite direction of its normal direction of motion. When that happened, a unique mechanism Bessler invented (which I have rediscovered in detail!) would, after a single counter rotation, cause all eight levers to lock into position against their weights' rim stops. At that time the center of mass of that counter rotating wheel's weights and levers would be located at the center of the axle and could provide no counter torque to the axle which would then oppose the driving torque of the single one direction wheel that was then propelling the two direction wheel.

  6. @Michael - i've made, i think, strident efforts at explaining for Ken how nuclear reactions convert mass to KE of the remaining nuclei. His shields are too strong though..

    But between you and i, there's fusion, and fission - in either case liberating kinetic energy in the form of expelled massive particles (ie. heat), and photons. How Bessler could've been converting this output into torque, without the use of steam turbines and sprawling containment complexes, and without fatally irradiating himself and everyone else for miles around, while using lead weights, the four stable isotopes of which have either magic or doubly magic atomic numbers and thus half-lives billions of times the duration of the entire physical universe (assuming they're ever capable of decaying at all), and all the radioisotopes of which, by definition, do not last long enough to be found on Earth, must remain one of the most enduring enigmas of this whole mystery.

    FWIW we've also been through all permutations of the "potential energy = mass" routine, too.

    Suffice to say, either eventuality would leave any other aspect of such a perputuum mobile paling into insignificance...

    If, on the other hand, it was simply found that the wheel turned due to "excess weight" - specifically, it's gravitation - then the only affront to physics would fall to our already ever-diminishing presumptions on the immutability of the vacuum. In short, we'd be forced to conclude that gravity is an active force, not merely a passive curvature of space-time... which QM and the standard model of particle physics already holds to be gospel anyway. Gravitons may not have been detected yet (notwithstanding that the data from the latest rounds of LHC collisions will take years to sift through), but their existence is pretty much a fait accompli since the other three gauge bosons HAVE been confirmed and they all fall out of the same framework theories. But even if they're found to be a false solution, their existence will thus have been pre-empted by some other mechanism of the vacuum's activity - radiation pressure of a Casimir-like force or somesuch.

    Ken's right in believing that energy must, ultimately, be conserved. But lest us forget Occam when jumping to any conclusions more elaborate than they need to be, eh... ;)

    1. "...i've made, i think, strident efforts at explaining for Ken how nuclear reactions convert mass to KE of the remaining nuclei. His shields are too strong though.."

      And I've made equally strident efforts to explain that there were no nuclear reactions taking place inside of the drums of Bessler's wheels. They were not necessary in order to cause the slow, but steady diminution of mass inside of the wheels as they outputted mechanical energy to their environments. If Bessler was to drop one of the Merseberg wheel's lead weights to the floor it would impact and the gravitational potential energy (and its mass equivalent!) lost by the weight as it dropped and struck the floor would be converted to sound, a little thermal energy in the floor material. After this energy had left the weight, that weight would be very slightly less massive and, thus, weigh a little less. The loss of mass would only be a fraction of a picogram. No nuclear reactions would have been involved in this completely natural process which takes place around us everyday in thousands of different ways.

    2. I've given more than enough examples of reductio ad absurdum resulting from an assumption that PE has relativistic mass. All energy has mass equivalence, in the same way goods have a cash value, but goods aren't cash and PE is "potential" energy - ie. the potential to convert to KE and thus take on relativistic mass. Again, if you were right then infinitely distant bodies would have infinite mass and thus infinite gravitation with respect to one another. Digging a hole in front of a weight resting on the ground would increase its mass. The deeper the hole, the greater the increase in the weight's mass... even though it may never fall into the hole. It just doesn't make any sense.

      However we needn't even go there - you've already acknowledged the KE of a falling mass comes from its GPE, which is of course restored when the weight is re-lifted. If you also try to include energy-from-mass into the equation then you're forced to conclude that some of that dissipated energy is likewise also restored when the weight is re-lifted - in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

      The GPE - KE cycle is enough. Rest masses of all fundamental particles are constant - you can't convert it to KE without destroying the matter that possessed the mass being donated. Removing electrons from matter implies ionisation, and removing protons means nuclear reactions. There's no other way baryonic matter (like weights) can shed mass. This converts rest mass into KE of the ejected particles, which would then need converting to torque on the wheel. But if you already accept that the torque instead comes from overbalancing, then the whole energy-from-mass hypothesis becomes extraneous anyway. The GKE converted from the GPE. Besides, why would the weights only convert their rest mass to KE when falling, and not then re-convert it back to mass when rising again? IOW even if you were right that rest mass - KE was a factor, the inverse would also be true as their motions are cyclic, falling then rising again, hence such a system is by definition thermodynamically closed and some other source of energy is still required.

      It's simpler than you're making it out to be - gravity is performing more work upon the falling weights than the rising ones. Hence the energy source is stated right there in that description - it's gravity, or whatever powers it.

      None of which is going to make any impression upon you until realise the only sure-fire way to really develop your hypotheses is to start trying to falsify them youself, rather than just defending them. Being unable to falsify a theorem is its ultimate defense. Being able to rationalise a false hypothesis using only its own terms is trivial, and inevitably futile...

    3. Just for fun, here's a paradox and a half:

      - we have a heavy weight sitting on sensitive scales, equidistant between two holes; a deep one, and a very, very deep one, and propose that we'll toss a coin to decide which hole we'll roll the weight into. So, holding our coin aloft, we stare intently at the reading on the scales as we prepare to flip it.... and you can make up the rest yourself. Three possible readings, depending on heads, tails, or failing to catch the coin...

    4. Vibrator, you seem to think that just because an object gains "potential" energy that means that it does not also gain mass. That is not true. An object will simultaneously gain mass whenever it gains either potential or kinetic energy. Also, digging a hole under an elevated weight does not in any way alter its potential energy and mass. Only changes in the location or elevation of the object in a gravity field will alter its potential energy content and mass.

    5. But if we lift a weight out of a hole we've raised its PE. So if it's now resting on the ground next to the hole, beside an indentical weight which HASN'T been lifted out of the hole, yet which could be pushed into it, which has the greater mass?

      There us no answer here that doesn't contradict either your postulates, or basic common sense!

    6. " Only changes in the location or elevation of the object in a gravity field will alter its potential energy content and mass"

      PE means a system has potential to move to a lower energy state. If that potential depends upon a conscious decision or coin toss, or indeed may never even be exercised, then attributing mass to it invokes irresolvable paradoxes. You're postulating that a rock lifted out of a hole has more mass than an identical rock at the same elevation that HASN'T been raised out of the hole. It might've just fallen out of the sky for all we know..

      Two identical rocks sitting next to a hole. One came from above, the other from below. You're suggesting the latter has more mass. Can't be right, can it?

    7. If two identical weights are both located at the same distance from the center of the Earth, then they both have the same gravitational potential energy and mass. It does not make a difference whether there is a hole near them or if one of them is somehow suspended over a hole while the other is resting on the ground. Also, both weights will still have the same final gravitational potential energy and its mass equivalent if one "came from above" while the other "from below". The one coming from above will lose its superior gravitational potential energy and that energy's mass equivalent, while the one coming from below will have to have a certain amount of gravitational potential energy and its mass equivalent added to it. Again, as long as the two weights are the same distance from the center of the Earth, they will have the same gravitational potential energy and its mass equivalent.

    8. It doesn't matter where in a field two identical masses are located, they would always have the same mass. The energy doesn't come from their mass if they are set in motion, it came from the process that got them to their locations.

    9. @Ken - but then according to your theory the weights in a Bessler wheel would need to get ever lower in order to keep losing mass. If they're just going round in circles, the same distance up as down, then what makes them lose mass? Surely they're gaining it as fast as they lose it?

      Aside from which, GPE = GMH (gravity times mass times height) - height as in vertical displacement of the system in question, not distance from Earth's core. A tall dam has a greater drop and thus PE than a small weir with an equal flow volume... even if they're at the same altitude.

      The other thing is that "potential" means exactly what it says - that there is a viable system in question. So a rock perched on the side of a mountain has PE relative to the ground below, but an identical rock at equal altitude buried inside the mountain cannot fall, so it is meaningless to ascribe it PE in the same manner. Likewise, a rock next to a hole only has PE if it's going to be knocked into it. So if we have two such rocks and decide to toss a coin to choose which one to push over the edge, and which to leave sitting there forever, then their PE is indeterminate until we flip it. Thus if PE = mass, tossing a coin can magically impart it. If we also used a random number generator to choose the depth of the hole then the amount of extra mass would also be arbitrarilly and spontaneously manifested.

      Again, i'll grant you it's a common misconception that relativistic mass applies to PE, from taking a blanket assumption that E=MC^2 and applying it robotically to potential, too, but here you have myriad demonstrations of just how miconceived a notion it is. KE invokes relativistic mass, albeit at relativistic speeds, and photons have it (AKA radiation pressure). But PE is just an abstract concept, not a corporeal entity, hence assigning it physical characteristics attributes us with magical powers.. and ditto coin tosses, random number generators, straw lots etc. etc.

      It would be fascinating to see if de-massed lead weights floated on water, or a de-massed steel chasis allowed cars to float in air. A de-massed spaceship might cross the solar system in days. If only we had tomorrow's psychokinetic technologies today...

      @doug - Right!

    10. "...then according to your theory the weights in a Bessler wheel would need to get ever lower in order to keep losing mass. If they're just going round in circles, the same distance up as down, then what makes them lose mass? Surely they're gaining it as fast as they lose it?"

      This is one of the hardest things, conceptually, to accept about an imbalanced pm wheel's mode of operation. Even though the weights move through a closed path around a gravity field, they can still lose a bit of gravitational potential energy and its mass equivalent per circuit. This happens because the gpe lost by ascending side weights is used to raise the descending side weights by a small amount which then raises the center of mass of all of the weights and their levers so as to compensate for the tendency of the rotating wheel to make that center drop. The offset center of mass' location remains stable and there is a constant torque on the axle which then can do external work and continuously drain off the gpe and its equivalent mass that was lost by the wheel's ascending side weights. With each circuit around the axle, each lever and the weight attached to its end will be a little less massive.

      In theory, if one allowed this process to continue, then a point in the future should be reached at which time the weights and levers would become completely massless and the wheel using them would stop. If that is the case, then "true" pm that can continuously perform work in its environment is impossible. However, I'm not sure that is the case. There could be some sort of unanticipated process that restores the mass to the weights and levers at some point in their depletion so that complete masslessness can not be achieved. Future theoretical physicists can wrestle with that one. My primary goal is to find the design Bessler did that allowed an imbalanced pm wheel to work.

    11. My instinct is to continue to protest that GPE=GMH, however since the weights travel in closed loops and H is thus constant, and given that G is also constant, that leaves M as the only potential variable... aside from which, any working gravity wheel, by definition, retains unbalanced GPE - both arguments defeating such a simplistic refutation. The only means to describe an asymmetry is thus in terms of 'effective weights' - ie. the input vs output force / distance integrals.

      The downforce on the descending side must be less, over the same distance as the ascending side, and THIS is the form of the energy gain. It comes from the I/O force delta, not anything else.

      And that force is gravity...

  7. Re. JC's blog post, what science cannot currently accept is that asymmetric gravitational interactions are possible.

    By this i mean that because gravity is constant in time, it costs us the same energy to lift a mass as we may harvest from its falling, regardless of when we perform either action.

    But of course, we all know this already, and concern ourselves instead with trying to modulate the effective weight of a mass in various ways - counter-balancing and so forth. And here, physicists are also on good firm ground in telling us that our efforts are futile - and Bessler himself also seems to warn us as much (his "lesson learned through bitter experience")..

    And yet, if his wheels were indeed powered by gravity then we are left no other conclusion than the following binary choice: either his method was to somehow freely increase the effective weight during the drop, or freely decrease it during the lift. Whichever he was doing and however he was doing it, it must fall under column A or column B.... or else, it wasn't actually an asymmetrical gravitational interaction at all (ie. wasn't powered principally by gravity).

    Something often forgotten in all of this is that, if it WAS a 'gravity mill' as most of us believe, then the asymmetry is reversible - perhaps accomplished by nothing more complex than running one of his one-way wheels in reverse.. which would, to all intents and purposes, result in energy destruction. And while the benefits of such an endeavor might seem spurious at best (though to be fair it COULD have uses - how about stopping a freight train without generating any heat in the brakes?), it would nonetheless serve to demonstrate that existing science already has the nomenclature to describe such phenomenon; namely, "non-dissipative non-conservative systems". These basically already exist, although they're exceedingly rare. A gain, then, would simply be the inverse corollary of an animal already described in the literature, rather than an entirely new taxonomy altogether.

    All of which scarcely sugarcoats the scheisse staunch skeptics will be forced to swallow when if ever it should hit the proverbial spinny slats; but just as surely as there can be no paradoxes, there is no dogma in physics... it is only certain adherents' application of it that so ails..

    1. Postulating that Bessler was somehow managing to skew the gravity field his wheels' weights were experiencing can get one on very slippery ground. I do, however, believe that certain very rare geological features can cause what are known as "gravitational anomalies" one of which is unusually strong at a place called the "Oregon Vortex". I certainly don't think Bessler's wheels incorporated something like this to change the difference between the mass and weight of a wheel's ascending and descending side weights.

      In order for the center of mass of an imbalanced wheel's weights and levers to remain on the wheel's descending side as the wheel rotates, it is necessary for that center to be rising at a rate that is exactly opposite to the rate at which the rotating wheel tries to lower it by making it rotate down and around the axle. To constantly raise that center of mass requires that the wheel constantly expend energy. The question is where did that energy come from in Bessler's wheels? I can see only one source of that energy which was the energy associated with the mass of the wheel's weights. That energy was extracted from a wheel's weights as their levers moved through the quadrant from the 6:00 to 9:00 positions of the drum. At that time, the weights would swing in toward the axle and, in the process, stretch a spring which was attached between a weight's lever and the drum. To solve the secret of Bessler's wheels, one must find the exact shape of the levers he used and where on those levers and the drum the springs were attached. There are, of course, many other factors that go into achieving a mechanism that will display pm. I believe I have most of them, but, unfortunately, not all yet. When (if) I finally have all of the factors, then my model 3 foot diameter prototype imbalanced pm wheel should run and I will, finally, be able to proclaim "Eureka!" I think I'm close, but I was thinking I was "close" hundreds of models ago! Maybe this time it will be different. I can only hope and pray it will.

    2. As ever, Vibrator, your outlook is one unprejudiced, wide and deep, unlike very many others, sadly.

      Yes, his shields cover for some very personal and tragic maladjustment of personality and/or soul, and my guess is that it is a malady insuperable utterly.

      Another guess would be that, if you were to view the insides of an operating Bessler Wheel, we would soon know for sure, what it was all about as related to science.

      Of the least of the various possibilities, I know, would be that it CREATES ENERGY OUT OF NOTHING but . . . it would be THE MOST delicious of them all for it would introduce to the notice of the state-loving, God-hating secularistas, the tangible possibility that they are after all not alone, in that largest large of senses.

      Such an advent would be a thing very, very good I believe.

      It's like is needed so as to tone-down the insufferable self-admiration (if not actually worship) that modern and "improved" Mankind has been so afflicted by. Humility and gratitude could then make a resurgence, chronic preoccupation with mere self fading, and resultantly, all being way better off for it.


    3. @Ken - yes gravity varies from place to place as a function of density of the material beneath the ground - NASA and ESA have published such gravity map surveys of Earth's surface. But i'm not suggesting this was a factor in Bessler's work, rather, i'm saying that "effective weight" is also a function of counter-balancing in all its various forms, one of which presumably must've been key to his method.

      For example, two 1kg weights on either end of a balance beam, but with an off-center fulcrum, causes gravity to perform more work on the greater effective weight, even the the masses and gravity are equal for both weights. The form of the output work is GKE, and this remains true even in a PM configuration.

      Your concept of raising the center of mass at the same time as it descends is a contradiction in terms, leaving no room for a source of PE. The CoM has to spend more time per cycle on the descending side, which means it's not getting fully raised again.

    4. "Your concept of raising the center of mass at the same time as it descends is a contradiction in terms, leaving no room for a source of PE."

      Don't tell that to a hamster inside one of those wire drums they put in their cages so that they can get some exercise. As the hamster runs up the side of the drum, his center of mass is momentarily displaced from being directly under the drum's axle. The drum responds by rotating so as to put his center of mass right back under the axle again. However, he then decides to run up the inside of the drum again and, once again, that displaces his center of mass onto the drum's descending side and, once again, it responds by turning so as to try to put his center of mass back under the axle again. By carefully timing his rate of running, the hamster can keep his center of mass displaced from the axle as the drum rapidly spins around him and even accelerates. Of course, in this scenario the hamster supplies the energy to make the drum accelerate. In Bessler's wheels, however, it was the swinging inward of the weighted levers on a drum's ascending side which supplied the energy needed to continuously lift the center of mass of all of the weights and levers as the drum tried to make them sink to a point directly below the axle.

    5. The hamster can only remain out of the CoM while accelerating - if he kept a constant speed the swing (caused by rotational inertia) would dissipate.

      But like you say, it rotates because it's a treadmill, no different in principle to a conveyer-belt type - any OB torque is incidental and hence moot. A pendulum raises the same mass it drops, and its energy also dissipates. There's no energy asymmetry - no net PE - in the operating principle you're aiming for...

    6. Actually, if the exercise drum's axle is connected to an external load, the hamster can remain out of the CoM while the drum is turning at a constant speed. When Bessler's Kassel wheel was operating the Archimedean screw water pump and had slowed to about 20 rpm's, the center of mass of the weights and levers of the active one directional wheel driving the large drum remained constantly offset onto the wheel's descending side. I'm convinced that with each rotation of one of Bessler's wheels, the loss of gravitational potential energy and its mass equivalence of the weights and levers swinging inward between 6:00 and 9:00 o'clock was being stored as potential elastic energy in springs attached to the levers and then, when those levers and their stretched springs passed the 12:00 position of the drum, the springs slowly released their stored potential energy and that was used to reset the entire array of weighted levers. As that happened the center of mass of the weights and levers received the energy it needed to rise at a rate that was exactly opposite to the rate at which the turning drum tried to lower it. The drum, as a consequence, experienced a constant torque which could accelerate it up to a certain speed or could be used to power an outside piece of machinery. In any event, when weights and levers went fully around the wheel and again returned to the drum's 6:00 o'clock position, they had lost another tiny amount of their starting rest mass. With every complete circuit around the axle, each weight and lever would then lose a little more energy and its mass equivalent. Meanwhile, whatever parts were connected to the axle and were moved by it found their kinetic / potential energies and associated masses increased a bit with each complete rotation of the wheel's axle.

    7. Vibrator is right, Ken. A wheel, and any mechanisms inside of it, wouldn't do both; raise the CoM and lower it. They actually can't do either one. That's one of the easiest proofs that gravity wheels are impossible.
      If the CoM of anything is fixed, then there is no motion, absent external forces. That's what your sims are trying to tell you in a roundabout way.

    8. And yet there's always the chance that when Bessler hit upon his first success, it worked for reasons entirely different to those he'd anticipated... you just can't second-guess serendipity. So while Ken's scheme seems to me to be a case of what i call 'simple 2D translations' - and thus robbing Peter to pay Paul - maybe at first glance i'd have the same opinion of a viable mechanism...

      Like the Lotto, you gotta keep playing to even be in with a chance, so at least he's still in the game. Keep up the stamina, Ken, you never know... what do any of us eh?

    9. dougsubous wrote: "A wheel, and any mechanisms inside of it, wouldn't do both; raise the CoM and lower it. They actually can't do either one."

      Actually they do both at the same time! This is only possible because, as the wheel begins to rotate due to its offset center of mass of its weights and levers (which motion tends to rotate the CoM down around to a position below the axle), springs contract, shift several weights closer to their rim stops, and thereby lift the CoM at the same rate that it is falling. The result is that the CoM remains stationary as the drum turns past it. As I've said previously, incoming springs into the train of interconnected levers are constantly being stretched as the levers they are attached to move between 6:00 and 9:00 on the wheel's ascending side. My sims only fail because I have not yet found the exact spring constants Bessler used that allowed his springs to produce the previously described action. Right now, I have no doubt that this was the method he employed and, hopefully soon, I will be able to announce the details of the secret imbalanced pm mechanism he used.

    10. No, they can't do either one. Gravity is responsible for CoM between objects reaching the punctum quietus. External system forces are responsible for the opposite.

    11. ??? An array of weights will still have a center of mass even if there is no gravity field present and the array, if a torque is applied to it, will tend to rotate about its center of mass. The center of mass of one of Bessler's wheels, absent its weights and levers, would always be at the center of the axle. With the addition of the weights and levers and their separate center of mass a torque will be applied to the wheel's axle as long as the center of mass of the weights and levers stays away from the punctum quietus. This is the method by which any imbalanced pm wheel must work. The trick is to find a way to keep the center of mass of the weights and levers away from the punctum quietus despite the rotation of the wheel. Not an easy thing to do.

    12. !!! Your array can't "self torque". It takes an external torque, outside the array, for it to tend to rotate. The presence or absence of a gravity field is irrelevant. Gravity is only relevant between centers of mass. If you have your wheel set up (physically, not a sim), and YOU offset (raise) the center of its mass by placing weights in an imbalanced position, YOU are part of the system, the (beginning) external torque. Allow your wheel to then rotate; it rotates because gravity is lowering the center of mass that you previously raised. The weights aren't lowering the center of mass. The weights didn't raise the center of mass. You raised it, gravity lowers it.
      There is no internal mechanical method or trick to keep the center of mass from lowering. You don't seem to understand that, I guess because you think a simulation program might hold the answer if you try enough variations of your idea. But if a design doesn't work on the first try, it isn't going to work by addition, extension, multiplication, division, or subtraction of the parts. I thought you would understand that too. I guess the portraits have convinced you otherwise.

    13. This is the ultimate 'pivotal' issue here, folks.

      We have some indication his wheels were torqued by overbalancing weights at the rim - his own descriptions of weights "applied at right-angles", and the wheel being "empty & light on one side, heavy and full the other", plus Wolffe's description of weights landing on the descending side.

      But then we also have directly contradictory testimony from Bessler himself, stating that OB attempts are futile; the "lesson learned through bitter experience".

      Perhaps the most compelling clue in this direction is his claim that, given enough time, he could construct a wheel that turned very slowly but with great force.

      Think about that for a second: such a wheel could NOT be torqued by OB weights simply displacing the wheel's center of gravity. Rather, many more weights would need to fall per degree of rotation, in order to provide that higher torque, despite the lower speed of the wheel.

      Furthermore, designing a low-speed / high torque wheel without a stator seems doubly confounding. It would be tricky enough with a stator to push against, but with all internal parts free to move, as B. claimed, we can only conclude that the trajectory of the falling weights providing the torque could not have been purely axial, and would have to be substantially radial, too.

      Otherwise, lower speed would also result in lower power....

      Notably, he also states that such a low speed / high power wheel would take significant time to construct... implying inreased internal complexity.

      This clue alone might be the single most valuable in all of them, combined with his cautioning against OB attempts, strongly intimating that any apparent resemblence to OB techniques drawn from other clues are incidental, and a red herring. In other words, while it may have been heavy one side and light the other, and weights may have landed on the descending side, it nontheless wasn't merely overbalancing, which again, Bessler clearly tells us is impossible anyway...

      Something for everyone to meditate on there i think..

    14. I can't find any quotes in which Bessler states that imbalanced pm wheels are impossible. In fact, he actually admits that he found success where others had looked and he was referring to imbalanced pm wheels which account for the vast majority of designs that inventors have come up with. Bessler, imo, was just stating that, although an imbalanced pm wheel design is possible, it is extremely difficult to find a design that does work. He should have known, of course, because it took him a decade of work and 300 attempts to find such a design. I'm up to almost 1200 designs so far and still have not found success. But, then again, I'm no Bessler!

    15. Frpm AP:

      "I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one
      further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can
      arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the
      centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few
      years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the
      truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn
      through bitter experience."

      ...Pretty much seems to preclude conventional overbalancing concepts doesn't it? Whatever he found, "where others, with true knowledge, had looked", must've looked somewhat different..

    16. Yes, what Bessler found that actually worked was "somewhat different", but it was still an imbalanced pm wheel. I think the critically important difference was that Bessler began using springs in his designs while others did not. Springs can be a headache to work with and, even today, most pm seekers avoid using them. The use of springs allows the coordinated levers within a wheel to shift smoothly in response to the rotation of the wheel. When the design is just right, the center of its weights and levers will remain fixed, more or less, on the rotating wheel's descending side. Bessler showed such a design is possible and that it does continuously output mechanical energy to its environment. Hopefully, we will soon have the design he used and duplication of his inventions can finally commence.

    17. Springs do have potentially useful properties but how would your proposal be extrapolated into a low-speed, high-torque design? I don't see how it can be done with overbalancing, since the only way to increase the torque for a given weight would be to increase the radius.

      Bessler seems to be telling us that overbalancing cannot work, and furthermore claims an ability that an overbalancing wheel simply could not perform, even if it were a viable route to follow.

      The only means to trade RPM for torque is to effectively down-shift the gearing between falling weights and the torque they provide. In other words, decoupling the trajectory of the descending weights from the axial plane of the wheel. So for example a weight might fall the full radius of the wheel, but only apply a few degrees of torque in the process.

      An OB wheel simply cannot be geared-down this way. Whatever the successful mechanism, it must hold the potential to allow the weights to fall further than the descending side of the wheel...

  8. K.B. has only a few score of wheelies to go, then he will disappear similarly to why he did-so at the BWF some years back. That will be one good day, indeed. (The Cosmic Vault has needed some serious attending-to for some time now. There he shines; here . . . . . . . fill-in the blank.)


    1. LOL i'm sure a thick skin is a veritable asset in these waters, and there's always the chance that it might only need nothing more virtuous than luck and perspiration to pay off. I think we can all admire his tenacity, whatever its inspirations..

      And i think the division between creation ex nihilo and vacuum power is largely a matter of perspective anyway.. classically, it'd be energy from nothing, only prompting recourse to quantum intangibles for those inclined to prefer more questions for answers...

  9. I'd be happy to "fill in the blank" for you, James: "There he shines, here he is trying to give Bessler enthusiasts some real hope that a solution will be soon forthcoming."

    This morning I completed and tested model # 1157 and it again failed to maintain its weights' and levers' center of mass on the descending side during drum rotation. But, as that center slowly sank below the axle, I did notice that it seems to be noticeably slowing its rate of descent as compared to it in earlier models. This could be an indication that, by slowly decreasing the spring constant of my springs, I am starting to approach the actual value that Bessler used. I have no doubt that the exact numerical value is there in the DT portraits, but has been very carefully hidden by mixing it in with other values so as to confuse and frustrate any future reverse engineer such as myself. Yes, I am very frustrated after over 1100 models, but at least I saw some small amount of progress today which gives me hope that, perhaps, my next model will, finally, find success. I believe that I am, now, at the the very heart of the Bessler wheel mystery and could only be a few modifications in parameters away from success. Perhaps I am now where Bessler was in late 1711 at the house of Richters in Gera. I have a sense of anticipation / expectation which is somewhat exhilarating. Otoh, I dread ultimate failure because I suspect that it will be followed by a prolonged period of depression as I slowly adjust to accepting the fact that I am no longer pursuing the Bessler wheel mystery and, most likely, never will again.

    Thanks for the promo for my website which I have not updated in years. To compensate for this oversight, I recently rewrote and expanded some of that site's articles and included them as separate chapters in my latest book ("Essays from the Edge of Science") which is now selling on Amazon and many other sites. I had wanted that book to be the one in which I was able to finally reveal the secret of Bessler's wheels, but that was not meant to be this time. Hopefully, that will be happening with a future volume and I will then be able to know a far more pleasant "closure" to my involvement with the Bessler mystery.

    1. Ken, years ago I built an MT9 like wheel and I found it to be a break even design, with virtually no resistance to shifting the weights, something that is easily proven mathematically as well. I could put a penny at the top of the descending side of the wheel and it would start rotation so I know very little energy was required to get it moving. Friction finally brought the wheel to a stop. The wheel had a 2 foot diameter and I used 2, 4, and 8 pound weights and I saw no discernible difference in rotation.

      So where was the energy released by rotation going? Is there a specific design required to capture and channel that energy to help propel the wheel? Can you elaborate more on your hypothesis to help us understand how the energy can be used. Thanks.

    2. Sorry to read about the failure of your MT 9 like wheel. It sounds like it was in balance which means that the center of mass of its weights and levers just lied below the axle and stayed there even when you gave it a spin to try to get it going. Obviously, that or any other design which does not maintain the center of mass of its weights on the descending side during rotation is doomed to fail.

      Instead of an MT 9 like wheel, perhaps you should have considered an MT 10 like wheel which Bessler said had a good principle although the design needed certain modifications. Note in that design that the levers are curved and on the ascending side they pile up on each other and the lower ones tend to be pushed toward and under the axle. That causes the center of mass of the weights and levers to shift over to the descending side. Also note what is happening around 9:00. There we see levers being supported on top of the pile of ones below them while simultaneously being pulled up by the ropes connecting them to the train of leading levers that run all the way over to the wheel's 3:00 position.

      The current wm2d model wheel I am working on is a modification of MT 10 that also uses spring tension to assist in the lifting of the ascending side levers and their end weights. However, my levers are not curved because I have found that is not really necessary. My design and the one I believe Bessler used only contained weights, levers, ropes, and springs. But, the secret of how he finally managed to achieve pm with an imbalanced wheel design lies in the shape of the levers, the manner in which their shifting is "correlated" by a network of interconnecting ropes, and the way he attached springs to the levers. So far, I've identified about two dozen parameters that went into making his "simple" design work. Unfortunately, although I know all of the parameters, I still do not know all of their values and one must have those values if he is to successfully duplicate one of Bessler's wheels. All of the parameters are encoded alphanumerically into the two DT portraits, but they are scrambled together. Bessler did leave us his secret, but he left it as an encrypted jigsaw puzzle of numerical data that he knew only a very few people would ever figure out. The data he left will mean absolutely nothing to anyone who is not actively building or modeling imbalanced wheel designs which, of course, immediately eliminates the armchair philosophers and dilettantes from ever being the first to solve his wheel mystery.

  10. Ken, off topic again, but I have a question.

    Have you ever investigated the work of Alden Park, namely his decoding of the hidden levels of chiastic structure in Bessler's books? His work is outright dismissed on but I don't know if it is because the decoding is a difficult process to understand and perform, or for some other reason, possibly personal. It is hard to understand the dismissal without someone first doing their own decoding and proving Alden incorrect. In fact, how can you make the claim that his work is invalid without proving it. You have certainly taken your fair share of criticism with your decoding ideas, not unlike Alden. Anyway it would be good to get your opinion on his work.

  11. Park used the X's (which stood for the Latin word "etcetera") in the "Little Book" poem of AP to find a series of chiastic structures within the text. Chiastic structures were used in Hebrew poetry and considered to have some mystical meaning. Since Bessler was a student of things like the Cabala and other Hebrew mystical texts, it is little wonder that he would weave these structures into AP. However, Park uses the structures he found to go on to develop a new and thoroughly unproven physics which he refers to as the "Bessler Principle". Trying to understand exactly what he is talking about is difficult, but I think he trying to say that if one can get the horizontally oriented axle of a wheel mounted on a really low friction bearing, then the gravitational pull on the weights on the ascending side will be a little bit less than the pull on the descending side weights. This creates a torque that then accelerates the wheel. Why this difference takes place has to do with the complex interaction which he claims exists between gravitons and electric fields. His approach does not require there to be any shifting of weights and levers within a wheel which is, of course, not in agreement with the observations of those that tested Bessler's wheels.

    Like most, I dismiss Park's version of the "Bessler Principle" because there have been many low friction rotating type devices developed in the last century such as gyrocompasses, etc. and none of them displayed any tendency to self rotate or exhibit the pm effect. If any of the gravitational effects he suggests were used by Bessler actually existed, then they would have been discovered long ago and used to replicate Bessler's wheels.

    You can read more about Park's chiastic analysis conclusions here:

  12. This morning I managed to push my model count up to 1160. I did this by creating three additional and still untested model wheels that only differ from each other by the values of the spring constants of their springs. As I went from model to model, I decreased the spring constants by, what would be appropriate for the Merseberg wheel, increments of 20 lbs per inch. I believe the spread of constant values I now have covers the most probable range that would include the exact spring constant that Bessler would have used. Hopefully, over the next week or so, as I continue to work with these models, I will finally be able to zero in on the exact value for the spring constants Bessler used. When I find the correct value for that parameter, then, finally, my 6:00 lever will shift (actually drop as it swings in toward the axle) fast enough so that the center of mass of all of the weights and levers in the wheel will stay floating in space at a certain location on the wheel's descending side and, once that is done, the wheel should have a continuous net torque acting on it as it rotates. Well, certainly sounds simple, but I know from past experience that various unexpected and unwanted effects tend to crop up at the last moment and ruin all of my expectations. But, then again, maybe this time will be "the" one where it does exactly what I want it to do!

  13. John,
    Bessler was using another definition of perpetual motion, remember their understanding of the concept was different from today. That's what gives Bessler a way out of the paradox.

    On your "Update" entry you said

    "I do not think he could possibly have understood all of what he was seeing. It would not have been at all obvious even to someone as intelligent as he was. I suspect that Bessler showed him the internal workings without pointing out the particular features which make the wheel comply with the principle I mentioned earlier. It will easily escape attention unless you know what you are looking for."

    Karl was either smart enough to figure out what was there or he wasn't. I think he was, but passed on it because it was such a weak machine for its size. If it was similar to an atmospheric engine familiar to us, we can see why.

    Didn't Wagner dismiss the beheading drama in his critique? I tend to agree with him.

    1. That is a question that has been asked several times in the past. If Karl knew for a fact that Bessler had a genuine imbalanced pm wheel, then why did not Karl, a very rich man, purchase the wheel from Bessler?

      I agree with you that Karl most likely passed on it because he was not impressed with its power output which he probably calculated was far less than that of a common water wheel or windmill. But, Karl could have had other reasons. Perhaps the main one was that, although rich, he would have had to have handed over most of his personal wealth to Bessler for the wheel and then hoped that he could make enough off of it to recover his investment. Most likely, he had "reservations" about that ever happening. I'm not sure of exactly how Karl got his money, but he probably collected rents from tenants on his lands and also from taxes he, as a nobleman, collected. Much of that money, however, would have been immediately reinvested in maintaining his little domain. I remember reading somewhere that, aside from his wife, he also supported two rather expensive mistresses! However, he obviously had enough of a cash flow to provide Bessler with a job and pay for the construction of the Kassel wheel. I think Karl made the right decision in not purchasing the wheel himself, even though, if that had happened, we might today know exactly how it worked. I believe Karl realized that it would be better for a group of investors to purchase the wheel so that, if it could not be made more profitable, then the financial loss per investor would be minimized. If Karl had purchased the wheel by himself, then he would have been assuming all of the risk which was a substantial one since Bessler demanded an upfront, lump sum payment equal to the value of a ton of gold at the time!

    2. You are right, doug, in that Wagner dismissed Bessler's offer to be beheaded if his wheel should prove false, and he rightly states that others who have made similar claims have not been punished, however none of them involved royalty, religious leaders and ministers of the crown in a fraud, so the circumstances were very different. It is also true that previous examples of fraud carried out on rulers did end up with a beheading.


    3. Besslerl knew he wouldn't be beheaded. His machine (with either solution) fit the older definition of PM. There isn't really a paradox if we use that logic. If we use your thoughts about Karl not knowing what he saw, then the paradox is resolved even further.

      Do you know if anyone had ever been beheaded for attempting to fraud a ruler with strictly claims of PM? Or would have this been the first time for PM?

      What we know isn't right is as you said, that Bessler was lying and fooling Karl, or both lied. The buyers weren't fooled either even though they didn't see the secret. Even though they had Karl's reassurance it was true PM, they didn't feel it had that much value, either to a single buyer or a group. There must be some information about the demonstrations that is missing, or mistranslated. There isn't any argument that if his machine was capable of the power he claimed, it would have been worth it. Something tipped off the buyers, I think.

  14. This morning a completed several more model wheels with even lower spring constants, again decreasing them in increments of 20 lbs per inch for what would be used in the Merseberg wheel. This is to make absolutely sure I have covered the full range of constants that would most likely include the one Bessler used. I am now at model # 1165, I have about eight different spring constants that each have to be individually tested. One of them, I am very sure, will be "the" one Bessler used. I shall spend the next week or so trying to find it. Quite frustratingly, I can find alphanumeric clues in the two DT portraits to "justify" each of the spring constants I will be working with! I think that this extreme ambiguity in the clues was intentional on the part of Bessler. It probably represents his effort to put a final maximum obstacle in the way of any reverse engineer working from the portrait clues. Sort of like one last kick in the arse from Bessler for those that think he would let them have his secret without the fight of their life. Thank God for secret weapon in the battle to extract the final clues Bessler left about the internal mechanics of his wheels.

    1. Does wm2d have programmed in, the mass to energy conversion principle you credit for powering Bessler's wheel?

    2. I'm not sure, probably not though. However, one can make a wheel with a certain mass and pin it to the background of the workspace with a pivot so that it is free to rotate. Then, one can use the torque tool to apply a continuous torque to the wheel. When the sim is run, the wheel will continuously accelerate and its rotational kinetic energy will continue to escalate. Apparently, this sudden appearance of kinetic energy from "out of nowhere" does not bother wm2d. So, I'm not worried about wm2d somehow being prevented from allowing any chronically imbalanced wheel design I come up with from running. I believe that wm2d will be able to show such a wheel in operation. It'd better or I've wasted a whole lot of time using this simulation software!

      Anyway, as the day passed along my mind kept dwelling on one particular spring constant value that is near the low end of the range of values for which I've set up untested models. Interestingly, that spring value is repeatedly indicated in the DT portrait alphanumeric clues. I'm starting to think that this might not just be a coincidence, but indicates it could be "the" value Bessler used. Come tomorrow morning, I will be taking a much closer look at the model that uses this value. As I've mentioned before, I continue to have trouble getting my 6:00 to 7:30 traveling lever dropping fast enough and that problem would seem to be remedied by using the lowest possible spring constant for the spring attached to it. Yes, I think I will start with this particular model and see where it leads.

  15. This morning I began the construction of model # 1166 which uses that lowest possible spring constant value I mentioned above. I did a preliminary run on the partial model and was disappointed when its train of weighted levers slowly began to collapse toward the ascending side. I was even considering adding a additional spring into the model to stabilize the configuration, but wanted to avoid that because it would seem to complicate the model considerably. So, instead I decided to just give the one current spring a tiny bit of initial stretch to increase all of the springs' pulls on their levers. That trick worked and then I made a very interesting little discovery. There's a portion of the second DT portrait which I have always suspected indicates an amount of stretch that must be given to the springs. The value is alphanumerically encoded and I have been able to extract the stretch distance, in inches, from the letters involved. Incredibly, that value is exactly the one I had to give the springs in my model wheel to stabilize the configuration of weighted levers! I consider this a good omen and very encouraging. Of course, I still have not connected my 6:00 o'clock moving to 7:30 lever into the lever train. That has caused center of mass location stability failure on all of my past model wheels. If I finally have the exact spring constant Bessler used (and I am very confident I do) and the correct initial stretch distance for the springs, then this could be "it"! I should know in a few more days. If this does not work, then, at this point in time, I don't see anything else I can try. I could actually, finally, be a dead end from which there is no escape! Stay tuned....

  16. Its really hard to keep up with all the new posts on here and the BW forum.

    1. You can safely ignore about 99% of the contents on all free energy sites because the bottom line is that, currently, no one has a working gravity activated imbalanced pm wheel (I'm not including permanent magnet powered motors because I remain convinced that Yildiz has one that actually works). Hopefully, that situation will change in the near future because, if it does not, I fear that it never will. That condition will, most likely, spell the end of all serious interest in Bessler which would really be a great pity, imo.

      I must report some disappointing news this morning. I decided to test my model # 1166 which uses what I believe are the correct spring constants and it still refuses to keep the center of mass of its weights and levers on the wheel's descending side. Once again, the problem is the 6:00 o'clock traveling to 7:30 weighted lever which refuses to drop (that is swing inward toward the axle) fast enough. I did much observation of this morning's failed simulation and think I might have a remedy for it. But, it will require adding more ropes to the design which I always try to avoid doing. However, if one must a change in order to finally achieve success, then one must (consider the saying under the second DT portrait!). Tomorrow I'll try making the modifications. Meanwhile, model # 1200 is starting to draw nearer and I'm starting to anticipate what life without Bessler research might be like.

    2. What's the hurry. You need to put much more thought and experimentation into each model before excluding. I would say around a month or so.

    3. If we just post more here this blog will get higher in the search engine search than the BW forum .
      So get posting so we can beat the bw forum in america.

    4. With each model, I know exactly what effect I am looking for. The model, initially, must be able to rotate through at least 45 degrees while maintaining the center of mass of its weights and levers on the wheel's descending side. I carefully analyze the motion of that center during the rotation. If I do not see the location stability that the model must have, then it's time to move on to the next model. Sometimes I will be forced to return to an earlier model and give it additional modification and testing. My method is really simple: I search the DT portraits for clues which are various numerical values for angles, masses, and spring constants hidden in the portraits and then try what I think I've found in a model wheel. If it does not work, it's time to try something a little different. It's a combination of feedback and modification to try to compensate for design failure. I believe that I already have about 90% of the design Bessler used, but still need to iron out the details of the springs he used to stabilize his wheels' train of weighted levers. If I was to fully reveal what I now have, I think it would really amaze everyone with how advanced it is.

  17. This morning I had a revelation while working on model # 1167 which almost knocked me out of my chair! Basically, I realized that I have been making the assumption that Bessler used "off the shelf" helical expansion coil springs because it seemed improbable to me that he would be making his own such springs and, consequently, have been restricting myself to using spring constants that vary in increments of 10 lbs per inch. Then I thought about MT 18 where he shows other than helical springs and, in fact, springs that can be made adjustable and given any constant and even made to be non-linear! This revelation now frees me up to greatly expand the variety of springs that I am using with my models. I started # 1167 and am beginning to introduce this concept of infinitely variable spring constants into my designs. Immediately, I found that was creating perfect counter balancing with a design that, previously, I could not achieve such stability with off the shelf components. My confidence in finding a plausible solution to the Bessler mystery is beginning to soar again and, with luck, it should happen well before # 1200! More to follow...

  18. An interesting bit of possibly-related trivia:

    How do protons do it?

    "In 1988 the European Muon Collaboration (EMC) at CERN shocked the physics community by announcing that the sum of the spins of the three quarks that make up the proton is much less than the spin of the proton itself. This discovery questioned the fundamental idea in physics that the amount of any physical quantity on one side of an equation must equal that on the other side."

    The putative answer, so far, seems to be a donation from gluon spin - in other words, ambient momentum from virtual vacuum particles - gluons being gauge bosons, in the same family as gravitons.

    1. I take it that Quark met Captain Proton after Captain Janeway managed to return Voyager home from the other side of the galaxy ?

    2. Eek a Trekkie! I don't care what the High Courts say, it's a cult and i'll have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

      Good day, sir.

    3. Maybe the three quarks in the proton are arranged in space with respect to each other so that two of them are spinning in the opposite direction and that causes their two spins to cancel each other out. Once that happens, it is the spin of the remaining quark that determines the overall spin of the proton. When a proton is ruptured during a collision and its component quarks fly out, then they each display their full spin value again. Particle physicists are just beginning to realize that they have only scratched the surface of the structural details of the classical subatomic particles.


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...