Thursday, 18 June 2015

Proof that the Experts have got it Wrong Again

While we continue to seek the solution to Bessler's wheel, and hopefully provide a new source of alternative, clean and free energy, the world continues to seek alternative energies too, but elsewhere.

A perusal of the latest news on the alternative energy front, reveals nothing new.  All systems are variations on obtaining energy from the sun, the wind, the tides, waves, low energy nuclear reactions and cold fusion etc..  There are few projects which create renewable energy, but in reality there is nothing new, they are just tinkering with the old favourites.  There are a number of improvements to batteries and an increasing number of hybrid engines that combine different energy sources, but in the end they all depend on the existing technologies.

There is not one credible professional organisation which is prepared to spend tuppence on examining the evidence of Bessler's wheel, and after 25 years of trying I have to accept that without a working wheel there is not a chance that anyone will even give passing consideration to looking at the evidence. It's kind of like a chicken and egg situation, will someone spend some money researching the claims of Johann Bessler and subsequently produce a working prototype; or will the wheel have to come first? Obviously the latter.

Having said that I have sometimes wondered if producing a proof of principle device will be sufficient to ignite development of the new energy source.   I know others have said that but having written it, I am still optimistic that the news of just one wheel turning continuously for a convincing length of time will hit the headlines in screaming letters 36 point high.

It is my belief that the wheel will prove of the greatest use but if I'm wrong, I still think it will be a novelty for years to come if only to prove that the scientists get it wrong more often than they would have us believe.  It will become number one on the list above,  the "bumble bees can't fly" myth, And in this case they've been wrong for more than 300 years!




  1. 'I am still optimistic that the news of just one wheel turning continuously for a convincing length of time will hit the headlines in screaming letters 36 point high.'

    This has not happened with other free energy inventions and so is unlikely that the media will cover a working bessler wheel and the internet is useless because anything digital they can make disappear very quickly and even if it is not connected to the internet they can read it and make it disappear. Do not record anything on an electronic device, use an old pre-forties typewriter and lamp black .

    1. They are Extra-Terrestrials and can read any electronic device on earth from a billion miles away, the British councilor Simon Parks was talking about that in an interview recently .

    2. How to make ink and paper for recording the invention of a perpetual motion machine .

      A link on how to make lamp black ink :

      And another link here on how to make paper :

  2. Ultimately, all energy we have on Earth such as fossil fuel, geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear had its origin inside of our Sun. It is the "slow" continual loss of mass there (about 50,000 or so tons per second!) which provides the small percentage that which we use to power our civilization. Even the lead weights inside of Bessler's wheels originally came from the decay of heavier isotopes created within the core of our Sun!

    Update: I have finished the CoM stability testing of my model # 1173 and it failed. My ascending side levers are still not shifting fast enough to keep the CoM on the wheel's descending side. That's the bad news. The good news is that I learned much from this failure. Mainly, I believe I now have the correct spring constant value and the right attachment point to the levers. What I must find is the correct attachment point to the drum. After more extensive analysis of the second DT portrait, I have a new drum attachment point to try and will be doing so for the remainder of this week.

    1. The 50,000 tn/s figure is pretty awesome, thanks for sharing! Especially when you start multiplying that up by the numbers of stars in the universe....

      However an argument could also be made that the PE gradient these nuclear reactions are subordinant too, and continent upon, is ultimately gravitational - without which the universe would dissipate into an amorphous cloud of mostly hydrogen, with a little helium and lithium.

      What funnels these stable elements together and drives their chemistry is gravity - also stratifying matter into discrete layers ordered by mass, and so sequencing the chains of reactions to squeaze the optimum amount of nuclear PE from the base ingredients...

      Remove gravity rom the scene and the net nuclear PE of the entire universe is zilch!

  3. Have no doubt JC that success here will shake the physics world to its very core. A paper dropped into axiv, hundreds of replications on YT etc. from readers on every OU forum... it'll be a veritable whirlwind of publicity in no time.

    And it will also force the 'respectable' scientific community to ask itself some very awkward questions as to why such a game changing revelation slipped through its collective fingers...

    But i still find it inconceivable that any force can't be substituted for gravity - the asymmetric interaction at the heart of Bessler's wheel is accomplished purely mechanically; not by modulating field effects (all of which, in the case of a gravity wheel, are constant and immutable). Therefore EM force is equally viable, which should lay to rest any concerns about power density.

    Either way it'll be no mere curio..

    1. Have existing gravity wheels on YT been replicated? No they have not and the inventors are either missing or deceased.
      Now mainstream science will not ever look or investigate a working bessler wheel, that will never happen in this world .
      Now Vibrator you like John Collins are living in a fantasy land .

    2. Umm.. any of those wheels actually work? The only account of one i've ever come across able to drive a significant load for extended periods is Bessler's.

      If any of us should crack this, it'll spread like wildfire on OU forums. And the whole point of Arxiv is that it's a pre-print repository, requiring no peer review, yet garnering much - as many papers dropped there frequently do. It'll become an international cause célebre, overnight, together with whoever solves it, and especially JC here for his dogged scholarship... i sincerely hope he also really has the solution too!

      You seem far too cynical, 'Anon'... have you even read JC's books?

  4. Who is putting out the dis-information about Johann Bessler being a member of a secret society that worships the devil ?

  5. Update. I just completed model # 1178 and, again, it failed upon testing. The problem remains the same: my 3 ft diameter model wheels' ascending side levers simply do not shift fast enough during the beginning of a 45 degree segment of drum rotation in order to maintain the CoM location stability on the descending side. Until and unless this problem is solved, it is not possible to attain imbalanced wheel type pm. With model # 1179 I will be exploring something new that might remedy the situation. It requires adding another rope and spring to the design, but yet still keeps the number of parts low enough for it to be described as "simple". The idea is to trigger the release of a burst of shifting energy just as soon as the segment of drum rotation begins and, hopefully, that will keep the CoM fixed on the descending side. It's amazing how very sensitive the location of the CoM is to even the slightest change in the various parameters used in the wheel. One particular combination of these parameters will do the job. The problem is finding it.

  6. **("...and after 25 years of trying I have to accept that without a working wheel there is not a chance that anyone will even give passing consideration to looking at the evidence...")**

    Because it's already proven it is not possible.
    One (I speak especially for myself) is a fool to try, possibly a charlatan when successful; and if one has marketed it the right and also able to explain a working principle with full disclosure, one could be considered to be legit

    **("...I have sometimes wondered if producing a proof of principle device will be sufficient to ignite development of the new energy source.")**

    Hardly. One can roughly calculate the required mass and size of a gravity-only device. It would be the size of a house to power one. So it's only convenience would be inside a bomb-shelter, a remote location, or as a very light back-up service.

    My progress update: After 10 years I finally moved from a theoretical feasibility study to a more practical feasibility test phase;.

    Greetings Marchello E. (ME on BW-forum)

  7. There's a chance you're eligible for a new solar energy rebate program.
    Find out if you qualify now!


Why did Bessler Use Embedded Codes?

It seems clear enough that Bessler had always intended to insert coded information embedded within his publications, because by applying a s...