Monday, 8 June 2015

Beware of making False Assumptions - and an Update.

Having spent the last 50 years or so, trying to replicate Bessler's wheel, I still occasionally err by making assumptions which turn out to be wrong.   

In the beginning I began by drawing numerous sketches of how I thought Bessler's wheel might have worked.  I assumed, rightly in my opinion, that gravity was the provider of energy. I accept that most people deny that possibility because they assume, rightly in their opinion, that gravity cannot provide the energy for the wheel's continuous rotation.  That is an assumption based on what we have been taught, but I intend to prove it to be a false one.

Having eventually ruled out most of my sketches, I began building models of parts of the various designs to see if they did indeed react as expected, or assumed.  Usually they did respond in the expected way but sometimes they didn't or they could be made to alter the response by subtly varying the angles and lengths of the various levers I employed in my designs. So my original assumptions were again sometimes wrong.  And of course even when they reacted as expected they were no good for purpose!

Clearly, if we believe in Bessler's claims then there is at least one false assumption causing our failure to replicate what Bessler did.  After the model-building had failed to elicit the correct response by my many mechanical configurations, I slowly came to the conclusion that something we ought to know about this subject was missing or had been overlooked.

Eventually I worked out what had been overlooked and immediately found corroboration in one of Bessler's clues.  A short while later I found another clue supporting the same conclusion.  Since then I have found more clues in support of my conclusion.  This is the principle I have encoded at the foot of each blog for some considerable time.

Making the mechanism which takes advantage of the principle has proved very much more difficult than I expected, but I think I have it right now, and I'm going to finish it.  I feel a little like the guy who has stated that his wheel will work within days, for at least the last two years!  I found that I had made an error in reading one of Bessler's clues, not the one concerning the principle, but one that led me up the wrong path in small way.  Correcting this error has produced the results I wanted so I'm completing the model.

The point of this blog is to say, "beware of assuming something, anything, it may not necessarily always be the whole truth".

Bessler was worried that people would think his wheel was too simple and therefore not worth the price.  I guess he was thinking of the principle that allows it to work with gravity. I, too, am amazed that no one appears to have discovered this simple fact.  But although the principle may be simple to understand, the mechanical configuration it requires to operate it, is not so simple, although once seen it will be easy to understand how it works,.  But I still remain convinced that even studying the wheel in action will not necessarily lead to an understand of the principle itself.

One last thought; someone asked me if my so-called Bessler/Collins principle would be automatically detected by simulation software and included in its response and my answer is yes, there is no reason why it shouldn't be.  As long as the required parameters are included it will respond according to the principle. It's more of an observation than a principle, I just don't know what else to call it.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.


51 comments:

  1. I've found two such principles, but haven't found a way to exploit either...

    One is that a mass accelerating downwards (ie. falling) is relatively weightless, so can be lifted relative to the wheel freely, while a mass accelerating upwards on the opposite side of the wheel is relatively heavier than its static weight, a force against which it can be dropped. Hence there appears to be an energy gradient there, if someone can find a mechanism to make use of it.. raising weights on the descending side while dropping them on the ascending side.

    The other is that translations orthogonal to a force vector are free with respect to it - hence if a mass can be moved into and out of an over- or under-balancing position using purely horizontal motions, then the energies required for these actions are less than any resulting GPE on the wheel.

    The hard part is finding the mechanisms able to utilise these principles!

    It's funny, because the corollary problem more often encountered is that we can readily come up with mechanisms that we then find, often after much hard work, have no net PE. Yet the above principles demonstrate the exact opposite problem - they're energy gradients, but lacking viable mechanisms...

    Crossing that impasse between mechanisms and viable principles is the conceptual thicket we all seem to get lost in.. and yes, the belief that one will necessarily lead to the other may be the biggest false assumption! Presumably, neither of the exploits i mention above are mechanically viable, hence they're worthless as mere disembodied 'principles' - of no more value than a mechanism without a viable principle.

    I've tried various mechanisms to utilise them, always failing for seemingly different reasons. But my inability to fathom an overarching reason why any such mechanism is impossible is one of the few things keeping my hopes alive.. There's definitely gold in them there hills, if only someone can find a way to get at it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, in my opinion, Vibrator, and I think the solution I've found deals with both principles you've identified. I hope so anyway.

      JC

      Delete
    2. VIBRATOR !!

      Question: Are you published in any physics literature? Have you authored or co-authored any papers or guided any theses, perhaps? Are you elder or younger relatively? (NOT intending to pry as to what and/or where. No. Just as to whether or not, and approximately.)

      -James

      Delete
    3. Vibe,
      don't know if it's of any use, but I saw a guy on TV give a demonstration, NO ! NOT MR. SPOCK.
      He held out a stretched spring in front of him, and then let go.
      What the slow motion footage revealed was, that the spring contracted, before it started to fall.

      Delete
    4. VIBRATOR ?

      I'll not inquire again.

      Delete
    5. To Mr V

      I’m working on a Toy’s page interpretation and think the mechanics are somewhat in line with what you are looking for. It’s about a near horizontal shifting out, making lighter when lifting, heavier when falling.
      My interpretation is however a card house of assumptions, so don’t blow. With reference to the Toy’s page and to cut a longer story short:
      C. Forms the heavier runner pentagon with weighted rim links A. The A links bend inwards and have central tensioners to prevent the links to break out.
      D. Forms the lighter and somewhat smaller driver pentagon with weighted rim links B. The B links bend outwards and have central tensioners to limit the segment arc to about an angle of 68°, giving slack for the top segment to shift out.
      C and D are mounted on an axle and D supports C, segment arms are connected by means of the longer links B for each segment (so again times 5). The lower C and upper D rim links kind of forming jack E.
      For the movement -with a kick start- top D shifts out at about 1.5 the average angular speed o the whole, two 90° segments (4 half segment stretched becoming lighter) go up and three 60° segments (6 half segments, compressed becoming heavier) go down, overbalancing the downward side.
      With the risk of limiting the degree of freedom for above, I left the D and C anvil eccentricity, CF, torque coupling and some gearing ratio story out.
      The question is if at all possible, what differential moment of inertia would allow a sufficient overbalance to overcome the driver D counter torque, friction, etc. to maintain the motion.
      Started building and trying to get an answer, for sure would appreciate wm2d frictionless feasibility checking and eventually, help with proper dimensioning.

      Delete
    6. Vibrator chooses to ply silencio.

      Very well.

      Delete
    7. To Mr Miller,

      I see, thanks for caring.

      Gives me an opportunity to improve current g-mill story:
      Folded segments getting heavier should read ‘kind of’ getting heavier, the resulting torque being greater for the folded driver or runner segments.

      Should have left out the 90°-60° division comparison as distorting Bessler IP. The essential overbalance information is the 4 to 6 half segment ratio and or angular rate, segment angles would vary within limits anyway.

      As far as the Toy’s page interpretations, builds and iterations, still a way to go but amazed to find a kind of dynamic tensegrity structure from these animictic glyphs, or is it art.

      Paul

      Delete
  2. Assumptions are sort of like the ground upon which the structure of a theory is erected. If the ground is firm, the structure built upon it will be sturdy and reliable. If not, then the theoretical structure build upon the assumptions will eventually collapse and perish. I'm not opposed to making assumptions, but every effort should be made to determine if they are valid. Assumptions that lead to something that works are, generally, considered to be valid. Vague principles are really just assumptions by another name. Again, they are of little value unless they lead to a mechanism whose functioning verifies their validity. Practically everyone chasing pm, me included, has his set of assumptions and principles which he is looking to verify with some results that can not just be dismissed as erroneous. The ultimate result, of course, would be the completely successful duplication of one of Bessler's wheels.

    I made it to model # 1171 this morning and still can not stabilize the location of my model wheel's center of mass onto the descending side as drum rotation proceeds. I'm even starting to doubt my *assumption* that Bessler had two springs on each lever! Now I'm starting to lean toward the idea that maybe he only had one and used some other method involving the levers' interconnecting ropes to "lock" them up with respect to each other temporarily until it was time for the levers to begin shifting. It's a new approach for me and I'm just starting to explore it. I have much work to do this week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Ken, that assumptions can form the groundwork upon which a theory is constructed, but I was pointing more towards those assumptions we sometimes make without being aware that we have made an assumption - a kind of unconscious assumption that slips through the net so to speak.

      JC

      Delete
    2. It is most helpful, having these numbers reported and seeing them increase. (Only twenty nine to go !!)

      For this, at least, you are to be thanked.

      J.

      Delete
  3. The most important assumption one must make with regard to Bessler's wheels is that they were genuine. That is, he actually did develop a pm wheel that worked and could continuously output mechanical energy. Unfortunately, about 99.9% of the scientific world can not make this assumption and, consequently, will not even study the available data. In a sense, we in the free energy community have to do their jobs for them!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yet another thought provoker, John.

    Prejudice in the mechanical arts is a non-starter.

    Sure knowledge as to effects and their preceding causes and as many of these as can be gathered, is just the thing for graduating to achieving more successes than failures.

    (We might remember the Germans' admonitions often irritatingly spoken to poor struggling apprentices: "Masters do NOT fall from Heaven!")

    John, you said "Bessler was worried that people would think his wheel was too simple and therefore not worth the price. I guess he was thinking of the principle that allows it to work with gravity. . . ."

    This is a self-serving defect present in most middling minds. It is to be expected as Bessler did. I guess this just added to his crankiness, the rational fear.

    And,

    ". . . I, too, am amazed that no one appears to have discovered this simple fact.But although the principle may be simple to understand, the mechanical configuration it requires to operate it, is not so simple, although once seen it will be easy to understand how it works.

    Just as Karl was.

    Now just guessing: Yes, Besslers's configuration that displaced weights to achieve a turning imbalance would likely have been considered "not so simple" to any observers however, if Bessler had not been so constrained by having to keep all enclosed, he might have made it simpler by direct usage of his prime mover's extra energy directly, in order to produce his torque.

    Such a configuration (2nd generation) would appear appear remarkably simple, I am sure, and likely be more efficient generally to boot.

    Any and all "laws" that stand in contravention to an observed gravity-only impelled turning wheel, will have to be said anew that such "laws" do not apply to THIS particular case because . . . , or will have to be SCRAPPED cruelly !!

    Also, Newton's representative figures which he drew within his youthful notes, will become standard symbols for gravitational Perpetual Motion. Why not?

    This is gonna be FUN, and the vindication absolutely DELICIOUS !!

    - James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have often wondered about Karl's remark about the secret of the wheel being simple. In his position, i.e., knowing the secret, I think he spoke with a certain amount of relish when he offered the teasing comment about how simple it was, and how surprising that nobody had thought of it before. It's that kind of air of superiority one gets when one knows something that no one else knows. I have enjoyed that feeling myself from time to time as I unpick another of Bessler's clues which I know are correct, but which I dare not reveal!

      JC

      Delete
    2. I've often wondered what it would be like to somehow go back in time and eavesdrop on a conversation taking place between Bessler and one of the more scientifically trained examiners of his wheels. Bessler, of course, would have known exactly how his wheels worked and his questioner would have been trying to "fish" around for information by asking him specific questions. At that point Bessler would have probably began delivering his own specialized "techo babble" explanation (amazing how many of these regularly appear on free energy sites today!) that would make the examiner more confused than before he began talking to Bessler! If the examiner, however, continued to pursue the matter, then, I believe, it was reported that Bessler would suddenly develop a splitting headache or dizzy spell and quickly excuse himself and depart the scene. This was considered a valid excuse for terminating a conversation at any time because I think Bessler did have some sort of a nasty accident in which he slipped on the ice and smacked his head on the ground. It sounds like he may have had a concussion and that was why he had to stay in bed for nearly a month or so to fully recover. If he had been unlucky enough during that fall, he might have suffered from what is known as a "subdural or epidural hematoma" in which the outer blood vessels of the brain tear and flood the cranial cavity with blood. The growing mass of blood then compresses the surrounding brain tissue and, unless one has immediate brain surgery to relieve the pressure, can be fatal in about two hours or less.

      Delete
    3. ". . . It's that kind of air of superiority one gets when one knows something that no one else knows. . . ." - J.C.

      Yes, I can guess how that might go and identify with it, almost.

      ". . . I have enjoyed that feeling myself from time to time as I unpick another of Bessler's clues which I know are correct, but which I dare not reveal!" - J.C.

      Yes, of course, but in your case rather sadly, no wheel aspinning has yet to come of it. Your role was to be as essential facilitator, seemingly.

      And honestly, I think time for such seeking exhilarations has now run-out.

      As I have written of it in divers places various of times before, only THAT ONE worthy and destined, was to take-out Great Excalibur, Lo! those plethoric centuries ago. (Apparently, this assertion is to be STUDIOUSLY IGNORED by all uniformly. "Amused" am I?)

      And so too will be found the very case identical, I predict, regarding this INFINITE POWER given us freely by Nature and our and her Creator.

      And worthy of closure: Some rather more interesting-than-not thoughts are now issuing-forth from the fecund mind of our favorite resident "knowing" seer and ace mechanic, K.B., even though I am loath to admit it, as usual. Pertinently, the Big Questions are precisely these. What that is useful is to come of them??? What ever has??? What ever could???

      "Obvious truths need not be proved." - Maxim of Law, original in Latin

      James

      Delete
    4. I now have a firm grip on Excalibur's handle and am beginning to apply force to it. Yes, I think I can feel it starting to move!!! What will come of it all? Hard to say for sure, probably just a volume on the subject at a minimum. Hopefully, however, some skilled craftsman out there will take the design presented seriously and the result will be the first replication of one of Bessler's wheels in three centuries. Will the world notice and care? Perhaps for a moment or two as a distraction until the next fad comes along to steal its attention.

      Delete
    5. Ha!

      Very good!

      You seem to have a bit of a humor-sense after all. (Even though I am uncomfortable admitting such surprise, after all these years of your overbearing, mind-numbing boor act.)

      Perhaps it is to be 'Sir Kenneth' after all but, only a few more to go now . . . will IT prove the very last one???

      As to this specifically, The Fates will have the last word. (Around them, even Great Zeus treads lightly!)

      -J.

      Delete
  5. I'm really glad you picked this blog topic, John. The reason is that it got me to thinking about the various assumptions I have been making as I continue to model / sim my way toward a plausible solution to the Bessler wheel mystery. I have been basing my last several hundred models on an interpretation I made of some of the "obvious" (to me!) DT portrait clues that pertain to the attachment of a spring to the weighted levers inside of Bessler's wheels. The fact that the particular attachment point I was firmly convinced was correct did not allow the center of mass of my model's weights and levers to remain on the wheel's descending side during rotation did not deter me. I "knew" my interpretation of the clues had to be correct and would not change my mind if my life depended on it!

    Then, after reading this blog, I finally asked myself a simple question: "What if my current interpretation of the spring attachment point is wrong?" Well, the answer was that would mean that continuing to use it in future models would only lead to one failure after another and my eventually quitting the whole subject in bitter frustration. I then realized that I could be suffering from a psychological phenomenon known as "functional fixation" in which a person can not envision any other approach to a problem and continues to make the same mistake over and over again. This is a condition one of my technical friends refers to as being "stuck and stupid"!

    So, I took yet another look at the clues in the second DT portrait and tried to erase what I "knew" they meant. After a half hour or so, I suddenly began to see some of them in a new light. Inspired I quickly used my new interpretation for how to connect the springs to the levers to construct model # 1172 and ran its simulation. What I saw totally amazed me. Suddenly, my ascending side levers were shifting more smoothly and fully than ever before. Even that pesky 6:00 o'clock traveling to 7:30 lever was behaving itself! In short, this change may have been the "big" breakthrough I have been desperately in need of for the last 1172 models!

    Anyway, I don't want to get too enthusiastic at this still preliminary stage of testing the "new" approach I am using. All I can say is that the design is even simpler than my previous ones and only requires the use of a single spring on each lever. The design is compact and could easily fit within the confines of something like the Gera wheel which only had an interior width of two inches!

    In short, this new design approach could finally be "it" and just in time before I reached the dreaded model # 1200 cutoff point of my research!



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always pleased to be of assistance, Ken! I have been stuck in my various pet theories myself, from time to time, and its usually when every road leads to failure that I ask the question, is my pet theory valid. The answer is usually ....no!

      JC

      Delete
    2. I think it was the psychologist Adler who said that people only change when the pain associated with not changing becomes unbearable. Trying the same approach to a problem only to always get the same failing results can be very painful, not only in terms of the time and effort wasted, but also of the frustration involved. I'm starting to realize now that if I had had the correct spring attachment point to the levers in Bessler's wheels earlier, I might have had this thing solved years and a thousand models ago! Oh, well, better late than never...

      Delete
  6. This morning I decided to make a slight modification in model # 1172 to produce # 1173. This modification moves the spring to lever attachment point a very small distance closer to a lever's pivot. Why the change? Well, it seems to be justified by the "new" interpretation of the second DT portrait clues that I realized the other day. Again, a partial preliminary test of the new model shows its levers are shifting even more smoothly than those of # 1172. I still, however, have not done full tests of both models to see how the stability of their CoM's are doing during wheel rotation. Those tests will have to wait a few more days. However, even by just eyeballing the preliminary simulations (which don't show the positions of the CoM), I can tell that there will be a big effect on the stability of the CoM.

    Assuming that this is finally "it", I shall, of course, announce the joyous news here. Once I see that my 3 foot diameter model wheel is running smoothly, I will immediately construct the larger version: the 12 foot diameter wheel which would represent one of the two one direction wheels used inside of the drum of the Merseberg wheel to make sure that my scaling up of the 3 foot diameter wheel's various parameters (weight and lever masses, spring constants, and rope attachment point locations) are valid and allow the 12 foot diameter wheel to also run smoothly. (Btw, the "full" two directional Merseberg wheel, assuming my interpretation of Bessler's design is correct, would have contained a total of 32 four pound lead weights with a total mass of 128 pounds. That was a significant percentage of the Merseberg wheel's mass and, thus, we can see why Bessler was obliged to remove these weights from the wheel prior to its relocation to a new set of vertical axle supports.)

    And, then what? The next step is to publish the design so that it will be available to those who are curious about how Bessler's wheels worked or might even want to attempt to duplicate one of them. I prefer to release this information in book form. However, I just came out with a book in early May and I usually take a break of 6 to 12 months between books to let my brain cool off and recover. That means that I would not even start the writing of the book until late this year or early next year. Well, perhaps, before I get down to the actual writing, I can at least have a detailed outline of the text finished and, possibly, complete all of the illustrations that will be included with the text. The illustrations are really the hardest part of any book to produce (I do all of my own using MS Paint) and getting them out of the way first can make the rest of the writing seem easy by comparison. Lot of plans here, but they are all contingent upon that CoM stability test on model # 1173 being successful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I had a very slow morning today because, yesterday, I seriously overdid it with some necessary trimming and clipping in the yard. Seems like every year it gets a little more difficult for me to get into the swing of things as summer approaches. Aging definitely has an adverse affect on one's ability to recover from exercise. Could be due to some sort of progressive deterioration in the functioning of one's cellular mitochondria. I'm starting to look into supplements that might help with the fatigue issues I'm struggling with.

    Despite this, however, I did manage to do a bit of poking around with model's # 1172 and # 1173 with the latter one being the one I now believe is "it", a perfect replication, in sim form, of the 3 foot diameter table top model that Bessler first found success with at the house of Richters in Gera. I did not do the critically important CoM stability test on # 1173 yet, but did manage to do some extensive analysis of # 1172. From this I realized just how incredibly delicate was the counter balancing that existed within Bessler's wheels (represented by the perfectly balanced ruler on top of the carpenter's bob in the second DT portrait). The slightest variation in spring constant, attachment points, or masses and the precise counter balancing is lost. Oh, yes, I do recall the quote of Bessler about how an ounce here or there in the lead weights does not make that much difference. This is true just so long as these small variations in mass, existing among 32 weights in a two directional wheel, cancel each other out and the rotational inertia of a wheel manages to carry the wheel though any serious negative fluctuation in torque during rotation. Cancellation of variations is, of course, aided by the interconnection of the weighted levers around the outer circumference of the drum. In short, if one wants to successfully replicate Bessler's wheels, one must have about two dozen of its structural parameters correct. If not, then he will have nothing but disappointment and frustration.

    Meanwhile, I continue to be mesmerized by MT 10 and 18. I've commented on MT 10 in the past, but not that much on 18. In 18 we see a design that attempts to use spring tension to completely lift weights at the ends of the springs back to their stops on the wheel's rim and, rightly so, Bessler tells us in the notes that the design does not work. However, he suggests that the "principle" should not be complete dismissed and that he will talk more about it later in the book. That "later" part was, I believe, the section where he intended to reveal the complete details of the imbalanced pm wheel design he found that actually worked but which, quite unfortunately, he eventually removed and destroyed from the unpublished work. From the design I now have, it appears that Bessler used the springs to only gently assist a wheel's levers in shifting a bit as the drum rotated through each 45 degree segment of rotation. Most of the shifting was, however, done through the ropes that interconnected the weights and levers. Yet, the design will not work without the springs present in it. This realization marks a major change in my "philosophy" as to how Bessler's wheels worked. Yes, springs are critical, but not as important as I originally thought. I'm starting to feel the tension mount as I get closer to that critical CoM stability test on model # 1173. The result will either send me up to the pinnacle of ecstasy or down into the abyss of crushing despair. Which will it be? Heaven or Hell? Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do believe that all seekers after the moto perpetuo (the Italian version of the elusive, chimerical wet-dream) eventually do go INSANE to some degree or other. (Here, the wives of such become past-master experts with their opinions, according to their observations of the Sad Spectacle.)

      Oh, it is a functional insanity alright, but still is a variety of nuts sure.

      What I am most curious to see is . . . what happens in this area of the pursuit of the alleged nothingness, when an actual operating Bessler Wheel is revealed?

      Having not any benefit accruing from hindsight, my best guess is that the most vociferous deniers of it's existence will be the ones working on their own most cussed failures. (They give it their 'all' for, say, fifty years but it gives back NOTHING!)

      They, such kinds, will choose (consciously or not) 'to disbelieve' so that their exhilarating fantasias will not end, even though a spiritually (and even monetarily sometimes) debilitating pursuit in-and-of-itself perpetual. (Hey! At least THAT is something, right?)

      No, the covers will have to be RIPPED-OFF so as to reveal all "for free" before beliefe will begin to manifest.

      Then what?

      The usual / predictable or some typically "little man" human reaction to utter defeat and flattening: "I thought of that myself!" Then will be the obligatory "I invented it years ago !!"

      And so the claims, counter-claims and "little man" nonsense all based upon "me! me! me!" of NWO baby world, ramps-up in velocity.

      Contemplating all the about along with all the logically expectable far worse (knowing my fellow humans as I have come-to, I think any discoverer of the 'real deal' might best quietly convert it into CASH as fast as possible, and then get away from the "little man" fray that is sure to follow.

      It is so: Nuts is as nuts DOES . . .

      -James

      Delete
    2. So James, if I were to send you complete drawings of a (very simple) working gravity wheel. What would you do with this gift of information ?

      Delete
    3. Excellent observations, James. Yes, when "the" design is first revealed, the deniers will emerge and proclaim it as unworkable while they proudly proclaim that only their designs will be the "real deal". When "the" design finally results in a working physical model, the deniers will fall silent and be replaced by the "improvers" who will proclaim that "the" design can surely be improved and that they will be the ones to do it and reap huge financial gains from patents on the improvements. When the boastfully proclaimed improvements prove impossible, they, too, will disappear and be replaced by those with alternative approaches that will be claimed to be superior to "the" design. Meanwhile, some Hong Kong toy manufacturer will manufacture a nice little DIY kit so that the school children of the world can build a working replica of Bessler's 3 foot diameter table top prototype. The kids will love building and playing with it and, hopefully, it will stimulate some of them to pursue careers in science and technology. They will learn all about Bessler and his struggles with the scientific intelligentsia of his day to prove that pm was possible. The physicists of today will sheepishly admit that they really new pm was possible all along, but were cowed into silence about the matter or "required" to deny it so that they would not lose tenure or government research funding by being considered to be too "radical" or irrational in their approaches to science. In the end, the main benefit will be that Bessler will be vindicated and his story will gain the prominence in the history of science it so richly deserves. Hopefully, a big budget movie or two will come out of it as well.

      The title of this blog was "Beware of Making False Assumptions" which is equivalent to saying beware of making assumptions that are actually false which you accept as being true. But, there's the other side of the coin. Beware of makings assumption that are actually true which you accept as being false! To understand where Bessler's wheels obtained the energy they outputted to the machinery attached to them, one must make the assumption that this energy was provided by the mass of the weights and levers inside of the wheels. I consider this an actually true assumption, but the world of science still, unfortunately, considers it to be false! When Bessler's wheels spin again, it will be interesting to see if any representatives of that world will confess their mistake. I suspect not.

      Delete
    4. Nicely put James, and I believe you are right in suggesting that perhaps the best way forward for that one who find the answer is to get the cash and quietly merge back into the anonymity of the general populace, forgoing the media hype, celebrity status and all that goes along with it ....if you can!

      JC

      Delete
    5. FIRST . . .

      "Contemplating all the about along with all the logically expectable far worse (knowing my fellow humans as I have come-to, I think any discoverer of the 'real deal' might best quietly convert it into CASH as fast as possible, and then get away from the "little man" fray that is sure to follow."

      This turned out a mess; the intended impartation going rather awry.

      Here, now, is the corrected version:

      "Contemplating all that along with the logically expectable far worse, knowing my fellow humans as I have come-to, I think any discoverer of the 'real deal' might best quietly convert it into CASH as fast as possible, and then get away from the "little man" fray that is sure to follow."

      Nothing was added but rather only removed, thus proving that "less is sometimes more" or something like that.

      J.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous11 June 2015 at 21:49

      I was not ignoring you and your question. It is just that I was away battling the heat, out here in olde Las Vegas.

      "So James, if I were to send you complete drawings of a (very simple) working gravity wheel. What would you do with this gift of information ?"

      Heavens! Why would you even want to do so?

      Well, the possibilities and liabilities being so huge, I don't think I'd even want to contemplate it much past this comment. An interesting thought though.

      J.

      Delete
    7. Ken Behrendt11 June 2015 at 21:54

      "Excellent observations, James. . . ."

      Well, thank you, just as were your own following upon mine own (even though I am loath to admit this for the usual classical, petty reasons.)

      Actually, what you have contributed there as a main body is so magnificently capriciously convoluted to my poor heat softened (114deg.f. today) brain, that I really cannot deal with it, as it surely deserves.

      HOWEVER, this part did not escape this lessened writer's notice:

      ". . .one must make the assumption that this energy was provided by the mass of the weights and levers inside of the wheels. I consider this an actually true assumption, but the world of science still, unfortunately, considers it to be false!"

      This would be the before referenced convoluted (and circumlocutious as well) part, being back to that same-old hoary theory of so much vexatiousness just predestined to CONTINUE to be held as one "false".

      (Rhetorical: Are we to EVER hear the end of it?)

      J.

      Delete
    8. John Collins12 June 2015 at 06:56

      "Nicely put James, and I believe you are right in suggesting that perhaps the best way forward for that one who find the answer is to get the cash and quietly merge back into the anonymity of the general populace, forgoing the media hype, celebrity status and all that goes along with it ....if you can! - JC"

      Oh! Most kind. Thank you John.

      Yes, any fame I could forgo and gladly leave to others more needful and bold.

      Just give-over to James the cash, and it's Scramsville for him. (An old or maybe new Beatnik term - https://www.google.com/search?q=beatnik+slang&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 )

      James

      Delete
  8. I found "latest" another claim ...
    http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6419

    stlndr

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have 5 different types that work, I am willing to sell one of my principles for 10 million euros, any of you interested ?

      Delete
    2. You write that you have 5 different types that work. By "work" do you mean that you have actually built physical models that work, have reliable computer simulations that work, or just have some sketches of designs that you "think" will work? The notebooks of pm chasers are filled with designs that they "think" will work and, absent a verifying physical or virtual build, these designs are not worth the paper they are scribbled on.

      Delete
    3. I have not built anything yet but I just know they will all work.

      Delete
    4. If I had a hundred dollar bill for every design I've dreamed up in the past that I just "knew" would work, then I'd be enjoying a far more opulent retirement now! I recommend you get yourself a copy of wm2d and try making models and then running simulations of some of your designs. You will then be surprised at how untrustworthy one's intuition about a design can really be.

      Delete
    5. I want the payment by 50 euro notes in brown envelopes, that is two hundred thousand fifty euro notes in brown envelopes and then I will give you one of my principles .

      Delete
    6. Well done Anonymous, you have managed to discredit my question to James, I have working wheels, but it seems this blog is a waste of time just like the rest. I was offering the info free of charge! and you guys have changed my mind. Thank you and good luck.

      Delete
    7. Shucks, and we were so close, too!
      Please Anonymous reconsider, ....... PLEASE! lol

      Delete
    8. OK I have reconsidered and because sterling is worth more than euros, I want the ten million in sterling plus 303 years of interest on ten million pounds and that is all I demand for one principle, the least powerful one .

      Delete
    9. Removing weights from a balance beam using zero energy is easy, that is kinder-garden simple easy, I found how to do that after a couple of days studying MT eight years ago .

      Delete
    10. As one weight is lowered it lifts another weight on the other side of the balance beam and it costs zero energy to do it, this is so simple, and the wheel will self start .




      Delete
    11. A weight on a balance beam can lift another weight on the balance beam while its falling using pulleys. Simples.
      And you all are waiting for Triplock to tell you how to do this ?

      Delete
    12. And BTW waiting with bated breath is gay .

      Delete
  9. Another "slow" morning for me and it's obvious that I have not fully recovered form Wednesday's yard work yet. Consequently, I've decided to delay the critical CoM stability testing of model # 1173 until early next week. Aside from my unusually prolonged fatigue, if the design is going to fail, then I'd rather have it happen during the week and not at the start of the weekend so that it bums me out all weekend and keeps me obsessing about compensating modifications rather than enjoying my other weekend activities. Meanwhile, I found an interesting supplement that is now appearing in internet ads. Basically, it is derivative of vitamin B3 that is supposed to help one's "tired" cellular mitochondria improve their production of the high energy molecule ATP which serves to power all cellular functions. Some of the 50+ persons starting to use this supplement claim that they feel like they're 35 again with it! Of course, this could all be "hype" designed to sell another overpriced supplement (costs about $50 per bottle which only lasts a month). I'll continue to monitor this supplement and see if it catches on. It so, then I'm sure I'll see lower priced versions begin to appear on the market. I've heard that a lot of ageing, tired types are using a supplement called "CoEnzyme Q10" which also improves mitochondrial functioning. It's not as expensive as the B3 derivative I've previously mentioned, but I'm hesitant to begin using it because I read one study of seniors using it that indicated it could cause a problem if one stopped using it after becoming accustomed to high doses. One should never use any "natural" supplement until and unless he discusses it with his physicians just to make sure that it will not conflict with other meds he may be using or is "inappropriate" considering his particular health condition.

    While I did not get anything done today with model # 1173, I have done much thinking about it and how I will present the design in a book. Basically, I am now working on an unambiguous nomenclature to describe each of the several different types of coordination ropes used in one of Bessler's wheels. Not only must the rope type be described, but I must also specify which pair of adjacent levers it interconnects as well as the attachment points on each lever to which its ends are affixed. This might sound overwhelming, but I have a nomenclature system in mind that is really very simple and will be absolutely necessary as I attempt to describe the action of the levers within one of Bessler's wheels during each of the repetitive 45 degree segments of drum rotation. Although there are, literally, dozens of ropes within one of Bessler's one directional wheels, the reality is that at any instant only a small fraction of them are "tight" and therefore being used to adjust the orientations of the design's 8 weighted levers. All of the unused ropes are "loose" and bowed out by centrifugal force toward the rim of the wheel when it is in rotation. All of the ropes within a one directional wheel can be very neatly arranged into 5 distinct layers within the levers. This, of course, makes providing a complete diagram of one of Bessler's wheel's a challenge. I will have to provide a full profile view of his wheel for each of the layers showing just what ropes it contains. This will be a guide for the serious student of Bessler's wheels who wants to attempt a physical duplication. No doubt, of all the works I've published to date, this book on Bessler's wheels will be the most difficult to illustrate. Aside from the interconnecting rope scheme Bessler used, I also intend to give some detailed views of the axle bearings.

    Again, plenty of plans, but they will all come to nothing if the CoM stability test of model # 1173 is a failure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's a link to the site selling that "miracle" supplement I mentioned above. They have a very professionally done video to "sell" the supplement and it is quite persuasive. However, I've seen "mixed" reviews of its effectiveness. Apparently, they provide a refund if the buyer is not happy with the product. I wish these various supplement manufacturers had a low cost trial size of their pills and potions that one could try for, say, two weeks at low cost just to see if he likes it and wants to continue using it regularly.

    http://livecellresearch.com/livelonger-vb13.php

    ReplyDelete
  11. Something is wrong with the Bessler wheel dot com website, I cannot get onto it .

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Ken, while I appreciate your input here and your continual updates on your progress, or lack of - I have had a few emails suggesting that you appear to be taking over this blog.

    May I respectfully request that your posts become more succinct and considerably curtailed both in the length and number. I am pleased that you are willing to keep us informed of your work on this blog and I have no desire to cause you offence, but the main emphasis of the emails I received was about the length and number of your posts, so if you could reduce each in some measure the management would be most appreciative.

    Thank you.

    JC

    ReplyDelete

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem, John, and I'm certainly not offended by your suggestions. I only tried to provide some content when I noticed that things seemed to dragging a little around here. I thought some might like to see some fresh opinions each day, but if they are not needed / desired, then I can easily cut back on them. I certainly don't want it to appear that I am "taking over" or anything like that because if I really wanted my own blog, I could easily set one up. But, as an author, I am used to rattling off words in an effort to express my opinions as clearly as possible, and that trait obviously affects the length of my posts here and elsewhere. I do apologize for this excessive habit of mine.

      Meanwhile, my confidence that my model # 1173 could be "it" still remains very, very high. Indeed, I could be making a long overdue and very welcome announcement in the coming week!

      Delete
    2. And, for what very little it is worth I concur: Thanks Ken.

      (JC can actually SECURE the delightful result that JM can only dream about in his best of dreams, specifically actual K.B. attenuation but . . . is it to last past the next two posts? Previous like-examples of this old written minuet indicate for- the most likely answer, which true reality I shall leave to the good readers to determine for themselves.)

      J.

      Delete

If You Won Would You Be Willing to Share with Other Claimants?

I noted an observation on the Besslerwheel forum, which I thought worth commenting on.   Mr Tim, I think it was, suggested that “   I'm ...