Saturday, 4 July 2015

More Musings

I have always said that Bessler used gravity to drive his wheel, and have been criticised for saying so. In discussions on the forum and here it has been pointed out correctly, that nowhere does Bessler use the word 'gravity'.  My response was to say that Sir Isaac Newton coined the word 'gravity' in his 'Principia', to describe the intrinsic 'heaviness' that everything thing of mass has, and in Bessler's day it had not yet become widely read nor well understood so he wouldn't have used the word anyway as it had not come into common usage.  However, since then I have come to realise that Bessler's description was entirely accurate and mine was technically wrong.

Gravity does not move, but it enables things to move under its influence, therefore it cannot be the driving force itself, but only the enabler.  In the past I have drawn an analogy between gravity and the wind.  But the wind is a force, unlike gravity. Gravity is an enabler as I said, but the wind is more accurately the result of differences in pressure resulting in air flow from high pressure to lower pressure.  The travelling air molecules impact on the windmill blades, and turn it.  Bessler said of his wheel, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity". So his weights formed the basic component of the wheel and they are analogous to the air molecules. Gravity which enables motion is analogous to the air pressure differences which are also enablers of motion in air molecules.

If gravity forms 'step one'', and the weights form 'step two', then varying air pressure is 'step one' and the molecules are 'step two'.

In the end it doesn't matter, many modern devices are inaccurately labelled, and no one worries about it.  'Internal combustion' engine is a more accurate term than 'gas' engine because it ascribes the initiating force correctly; 'gravity wheel' is vague but you do get the picture even if it ascribes the initiating force to gravity rather than the fall of a weight, due to gravity.

Currently relaxing in Spain, enjoying sunshine, swimming, walking and of course the odd glass of wine, beer and sangria - but not all at the same time!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

50 comments:

  1. Ken, don't give up!... after you take a break, you will be amazed by the new revelations that crystallise out of your sub-conscious mind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not gravity wheel but the hammer wheel or pile driver wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glad to read that you are soaking up the Sun down in Spain, John. Hopefully, the security on their beaches is better than it was on the one down in Tunisia! It is now the 4th of July on our side of the "pond" and we're all a bit nervous about a terrorist inspired incident occurring just as the fireworks are in bloom tonight.

    I now recognize four elements being necessary to achieve imbalanced wheel pm. They are a.) a unidirectional force applied to the end of levers (in the case of Bessler's wheels, this force was produced by the gravitational attraction between the lead weights and the mass of the Earth) whose pivots are symmetrically angularly arranged around an interior circumference of a wheel free to rotate about its central axis, b.) a network of ropes that coordinate the motion of the levers when they begin to shift and which force the center of force acting on the ends of the levers to remain displaced onto the rotating wheel's descending side to thereby produce a net torque on the wheel's axle, c.) a collection of springs that counterbalance the levers and help to maintain their center of force on the wheel's descending side when the wheel is not in motion, and, finally, d.) an extra "Compensator" that supplies the extra energy needed by one of the ascending side levers so that it can swing in far enough toward the wheel's axle so as to keep the center of force well displaced onto the wheel's descending side. Bessler's wheels had all of these factors while, unfortunately, everyone else's wheels lacked the critically necessary "Compensator".

    Update. I continue to work on my model # 1190 which will become a "source" model or template that will be used for the remaining ten models of my research effort. Bessler mentioned that it took him several days to "adjust" a wheel before it could be put into service. I suspect that the adjustments involved the springs, the Compensators (one for each lever) in the design, and the latching system the wheels used to achieve bi-directionality (and, again, each lever required its own latching mechanism). I still have much work ahead of me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I now recognize . . ."

      DO you really ??

      Generally, fresh cognizance is good when and where we can access it but, might we detect here in our own novel sort of it, a whole brand-new round of #1 through #1200 models, about which the already massively weary will have to endure more and more, and yet more STILL, plethorous, too-wordy reports ???

      At this critical juncture of 'almost relief', especially troubling is this new bit of suspect emphasis that K.B. now introduces to our notice:

      ". . . I still have much work ahead of me."

      Why is this SO VERY believable?

      Give all the known, amassed past history, the implication range of THIS one, is truly a thing frightening.

      Where is it to go, in the context of Our Elimination Struggle (a sort of bowel movement of utterly "unaware" boorishness), and for possibly how long might it ??

      Until THE moment of emancipation from constructed, to-purpose in YOUR FACE said boorishness, the mind individually and severally reels with this cat and mouse, very nasty verbiage tease, headed always, invariably, invariably, invariably toward Nowhere Land itself !!

      When are we to be finally RID of the outrage of it all ??? (Rhetorical - not needing of response - the answers, of one OR the other, being self-evident.)

      He has, however, accomplished one thing PERPETUAL: An overbearing presence of monstrous, cussed stubbornness that seems totally, wholly and most impudently and perfectedly UNAWARE of the discomfiture of OTHERS. Resultantly, along this particular rare line, I predict there will BE no other. Just that.)

      J.

      PS And still he refuses to notice us about his new "Compensator". Again we ask, WHAT manner of novel thing might THIS be, and for what, huh ?????

      Delete
  4. Wish i was back down on the Costa Brava! I spent my hols downing 2 liters of Don Simon sangria each day on the beaches, a pint (half liter) of San Miguel with lunch & dinner, a couple more for my evening WiFi sesh - al fresco, with a fat Alvaro stogie (only 40¢ each! Brought a box home) - then a couple of cans of Estrella back in the hotel room before bed. Patio doors open all night, woken by the sun flooding through in time for breakfast each morning. Shower, coffee, and back on the beach. Bliss.

    In the mornings the Med's perfectly calm like a still lake, crystal clear water twinkling, beckoning, like super-realist CGI. Schools of various fishes darting and criss-crossing paths... I'd go diving with the cormarants as they chase down their prey. Feeding chorizo to crabs (they're crazy for it!). Just need a good pair of oversize goggles or a mask - snorkles are too restrictive. And the Catalan women.. Olé! Some of them have this walk, mesmerising hips, regional trait, must be genetic...

    Record numbers of Spaniards back in London this year! Not all seem to be tourists either, i get the impression they're scouting for opportunities in readiness for the Grexit fallout, but it brings a nice touch of the exotic to our current heatwave, seeing them out and about...

    Back on topic; gravity's defined as a force because its effects fit that formal description - F=MA. If it's the driving force - such as by reducing the effective weight of the rising masses - then the form of the output energy is gravity times mass (or effective weight), times height; GMH, and likewise the potential is GPE.

    My point is that mechanical energy can be defined only in relation to force and displacement - "energy" is their product, regardless of the units applied, so there need be no stigma attached to invoking gravity as an energy source - gravity alone is just a force, and only contributes to energy when factored with a mass displaced by some height.

    Because we're dealing with weight attenuation (by whatever means), the mass term in the standard GMH expression is superceded by effective weight - ie. taking into consideration any form of counter-balancing or redistribution of the center of mass - so our energy form is "G * W * H"... we have two such integrals, one for the ascending side, and another for the descending side, and since the H value remains constant (because the weights must travel equal distance up as down), and G is also constant, W is the only available variable. Hence we have GW1H on descent, but GW<1H on ascent. Our GPE is the difference between W1 and W<1.

    "Gravity wheel" is fine. Ditto "gravity mill" - much like a water wheel, except there, solar energy provides a variation in H, with G and M remaining constant.

    Besides, if the driving force were inertial then one would expect that Bessler would've produced at least one horizontal wheel to free the mechanism from the additional complexities of gravitation. A gravity wheel is the most consistent explanation, driven by gravitational potential energy, caused by weight attenuation.

    That's my 2¢, at least notwithstanding the impending Euro collapse... Enjoy the rest of your break!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, HERE we have writing !!

      Massively thick, as it is, with subtle insights, novel views and, of course, knowledge-unmistakable.

      For one I always welcome reading new things when and as they are posted by Vibrator.

      Authentic guality thinking and writing stand-out always.

      James

      Delete
    2. You're far too generous for a diatribe on booze, arse and psuedoscience but for me it's reward enough to get to mention all three in the same post...

      Chao!

      Delete
    3. Ah!

      Not "pseudo science" at all.

      I think I got all of it this time.

      I can't say exactly why right now but, I have a strong notion that it will be found that Bessler performed some real mechanical "MAGIC", and by means of 'the dodge' used for same created an authentic asymmetrically-reacting device, and doing-so way, way before our dear Emmy's grandfather was ever a glint in her great-grandfather's eye or, of course, her Theorems even proposed. (I'd bet that back that far, asymmetry was not yet a word?)

      This asymmetry of reaction made "magically" then allowing one wight to fall with A GREATER FORCE than what was required to first raise it! This left-over extra being then used to raise an imbalancing weight for 'the big fall'.

      (Sounds to me like the old 'bootstraps' one should be introduced here pronto!)

      The other day I was reading-over a judgment and to conclude the judge stated with great boldness of conviction and judiciating force as follows: ". . . for only God Almighty himself can create something out of nothing."

      As well as all of the preceding, perhaps Bessler's miraculous creation did JUST THAT, and by the means cited.

      "All BEHOLD: it comes out from Nowhere!"

      If found actually so, THEN WHAT for the lab-coat coterie???

      Your second part was as interesting as the first, Vibrator. It spurred me on to some "creative" thinking.

      James

      Delete
  5. Update. I've managed to complete my "source" wheel which is model # 1190 for me. It is probably the most perfectly constructed model I have made to date and it is complete with the newly discovered Compensators. However, being a model of Bessler's 3 foot diameter prototype, it lacks the extra latching mechanisms required to achieve bi-directionality because these are not needed for a one-directional wheel as was his prototype. With model # 1191 I will begin the finally testing and adjustment phase of the design. If I am very lucky, no adjustments may be necessary and this model will immediately display the pm effect which just means that the coordinated motions of its eight weighted levers will keep their CoM stably located on the model wheel's descending side as the wheel completes each 45 degree segment of rotation. That would, indeed, be very nice and I could declare victory at that point. However, before I definitely declare victory, I think it would be prudent to scale the design up to the 12 foot diameter version used in the Merseberg wheel. If that also produces a runner, then I feel I will then be able to fully declare success without serious reservations. So, then what?

    After giving the matter much thought, I think that such an historically important rediscovery merits a book length treatment. The volume will be intended to be a major contribution to the literature of pm devices; actually far more informative than anything produced by Dircks, Gould, or even Bessler himself! Its content should be clear enough for a high school student to easily follow, yet precise enough for a skilled craftsman to use as a guide in an attempt to manufacture a replica of Bessler's Merseberg wheel. This means that it will have to have an abundance of illustrations showing various views of his wheel's internal mechanics. I will also provide an analysis of the many DT portrait clues that led to the rediscovery. No doubt, this volume will be a challenge to write and illustrate, but I will make the effort since I know how very important finally seeing this mystery solved is to the many people it has perplexed over the decades. The time for a plausible solution is now and I will do my best to make it happen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Words fail me......I think you need to reign it in a bit!!

      Delete
    2. I must agree with you! I tend toward excessive "exuberance" whenever I see the slightest progress with my Bessler research. Yet, in the past week I have seen a sudden spike in progress starting with the perfect balance displayed by my model # 1184. That single model immediately confirmed to me the exact spring constants Bessler used and the locations of two of the attachment points for these springs. But, then there was a depressing lull in progress before, suddenly, the concept of the "Compensator" emerged. Incredibly, it is clearly indicated in the second DT portrait clues. Well, by the end of this present week I will probably be making an important announcement on this blog. It will either be that I have finally "cracked the nut" of the Bessler wheel mystery and found his design or that I have finally decided to call it quits and head for place amongst all of the other armchair philosophers out there who have, basically, given up on finding a solution in their one and only lifetime. My destiny is now in the hands of God at this point...a condition, I'm certain, Bessler knew all too well.

      Delete
    3. http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms/

      Delete
    4. Ken, I thought you were going to work on magnetic designs if the gravity wheel did not work. I hope you plan on continuing this. There are many good places to continue your research and postings such as www.overunity.com. Bessler never gave up and neither should you.

      Delete
    5. overunity.com is one of big oils early warning systems of what they need to suppress.

      Delete
    6. To the first anonymous: If you are trying to disparage or demotivate me with a quick "pop" psychoanalysis, then you are wasting your time. Those engaged in such actions usually suffer from the very problems they are trying to attribute to others!

      To the second anonymous: Now that the Yildiz permanent magnet motor has arrived, I'm starting to think that there's not much I could do to improve on it. Mark my words, we will see much more about this device in the future. You then wrote "...if the gravity wheel did not work." Right now I remain very firmly convinced that I am closer to Bessler's design than anybody else has been in the last 300 years and can not even imagine it not working. However, in the extremely unlikelihood that it does not work, then I may surface from time to time on various free energy / physics forums just to see what the topics of the day are. Aside from Bessler's wheels, I have several other topics I am very interested in researching for possible future books.

      To the third anonymous: I'm not worried about "big oil" trying to suppress Bessler's wheels. Their power output densities are far, far too low to be a threat to the infernal combustion engine. Big oil really needs to fear future developments in solar, nuclear, and even fusion energy.

      Update. I still have yet to begin the serious testing of Model # 1190 with its newly added Compensators. However, yesterday evening I did manage to verify that two of the coordinating ropes in my design that must occupy the same layer do not touch when they enter octants in which they both become slack. This is an important point. Optimally, one does not want any two ropes within a design to have rubbing contacts with each other as the wheel rotates because that would inevitably cause one of the ropes to fail. Imagine the Merseberg wheel "coasting" at 40 rpm's and two of its adjacent coordinating ropes making a rubbing contact with each other during each complete wheel rotation. That would mean that there would be 40 x 60 x 24 = 57,600 rubbing contacts taking place per day! No regular rope could withstand that for long. Lubricated chains might help, but they would be very noisy. It's really amazing the many technical problems Bessler had to overcome to finally achieve a working wheel design. His method of preventing rope wear was simple: place any two ropes in danger of a rubbing contact into separate layers within a rather wide lever. My latest research shows he subdivided each lever's interior space into at least 5 separate layers.

      Delete
  6. "To the first anonymous: If you are trying to disparage or demotivate me with a quick "pop" psychoanalysis, then you are wasting your time. Those engaged in such actions usually suffer from the very problems they are trying to attribute to others!" - K.B.

    Of course, because 'above it all' our subject cannot be moved by any disparagement (justified or not) whatever, nor be demotivated on the account. (Defensiveness takes on many forms, this being but one.)

    Better logic suggests (I believe) that such a one as K.B. might improve greatly, by application of some NON-pop psychoanalysis, especially if Reichian, this so as to break-up all that pelvic armoring that prevents natural pleasurable streaming, which serves to answer naturally for "the why" of why we exist to live, etc.

    Lacking this most healthful, deserved circumstance, if occurs to rather many suffering from it, that life seems not much worth living. There IS a reason for this. It is orgastic impotence (as contra distinguished from wild, licentious sexual nonsense which leads also to it's own Nowhere Land) . On this account most do suffer. Not unexpectedly, such effectees' biggest job is to strive to DENY the fact of this misery, and then to work subconsciously to extend this to others. Most are successful as "Misery loves company." (This perverse reality is very much encouraged by The State, whichever it may be.)

    Continuing . . .

    We see that yet more tedious, impudent detailing about this that and the predictable usual other, continues to be heaped upon We The Weary, this latest leading to that usual address: Place-Vapid.

    We pray that soon it all is to end, with the oh-so-subtle bullying overbearance to follow suit resultantly.

    Onward and upward.

    Keep the faith.

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn...lost another post, but, this time due to my mistake.

      My advice to those who, like me, want to follow Dr. Reich's prescription and enjoy regular and frequent "natural pleasurable streaming" is to avoid the excess use of ethanol and anti-depressants while maintaining optimal dietary intake of zinc. Giacomo Casanova did the latter by consuming goodly quantities of oysters. Today, the same effect can be inexpensively achieved with dietary supplements.

      Update. I'm now starting to adjust the Compensators in my model wheels and, joyously, I was able to immediately stabilize that misbehaving 7:30 levers. However, I'm starting to see some very unexpected things happening with my wheel's upper levers. Shortly, I will be starting another testing session with my design. Stay tuned for further and, hopefully, positive news.

      Delete
    2. Well, surprisingly, THIS would seem like good, general advice but still, will not act so as to assuage the great mass of consolidated, held-damage caused by the usual suspects, these being guilt, projection and denying.

      From K.B., we WILL be staying on-frequency . . . awaiting the marvelous Last and Final Report.

      J.

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

    ReplyDelete
  8. Update. Bad news yet again. Yesterday, I spent another hour with my wheel model and was able to thoroughly test my new "Compensators". They, unfortunately, did not hold up under more rigorous testing. They did allow my 7:30 lever to achieve the orientation which I believe the DT clues say it must have, but this then resulted in all of my upper wheel levers loosing their stability. They are not the solution to the pesky 7:30 lever orientation problem that I sought and I am now abandoning them. As I continued to think about the failed testing, a strange thought occurred to me. What if I am trying to make that 7:30 lever achieve an orientation that is not physically possible for it to achieve? What if I have, all along, misinterpreted the DT portrait clue that I thought was providing the orientation angle for that lever? Well, I am going to have to give this matter much thought. On the bright side, there is the possibility, incredible as it might seem, that my perfectly balanced model # 1185 is actually "the" design that Bessler used even though the location of its CoM is not exactly where I think it is supposed to be. In the coming days I will subject that model to additional testing and see what happens. This wouldn't be the first time in history that someone had the right answer, but bypassed it because he did not, at the time, recognize it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, yes, yes but, not stated for the teeming-interested was THE MODEL NUMBER that we're now up-to.

      Which might it be?

      Or as cast into words-alternate, WHEN is final relief (blessed) to be ours???

      "Inquiring minds need to know."

      Delete
    2. The number is 1191-A.
      1191-B is coming up next.

      Delete
    3. I think I'm up to model # 1191 at this point in time. I've scrapped the "Compensator Approach" permanently. I have to always keep in mind that Bessler's design was "simple" and that Karl expressed surprise that no one had thought of it previously! The Compensators tended to make my perfectly balanced model # 1185 a bit too complicated. They had to go. However, without them I will have a design that does not project its CoM as far out, horizontally, onto the descending side as I thought was necessary. I'll soon be beginning model # 1192 and see where the CoM is located when I just let the 7:30 lever settle into its equilibrium orientation. Then I'll calculate the new torque that this would produce in the scaled up 12 foot diameter Merseberg wheel. I need to have enough torque to lift about a 12 lb weight attached directly to a rope wrapped directly around its axle which means a torque of a little more than 36 in-lbs. If the new, previously dismissed, equilibrium orientation of the 7:30 lever gives me this amount of torque, then that would seem to be further proof that model # 1185 is, indeed, "the" design Bessler used. Despite the failure of the Compensator testing, I remain optimistic.

      Delete
  9. At last, it is being revealed!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Update. Only a little bit of interesting news to report after yesterday's testing of model # 1185 which was used as a template for model # 1192. I decided to let that model's unruly 7:30 lever swing into the orientation it wants to be in and did so. To my surprise it did not swing as far away from the axle as I thought it would. But, now, for the interesting part: the angle it assumed is exactly the one indicated by the particular symbol used in the second DT portrait to represent the 7:30 lever! Chance? I doubt it. The next test I will do is to see exactly where this new orientation of the 7:30 lever puts the CoM of my 3 foot diameter model wheel on its descending side. I need to have it no closer, horizontally, to the center of the axle than about 0.08 inches. It that proves to be the case, then it will be additional and very significant evidence that model # 1185 is the design Bessler used.

    Meanwhile, another interesting detail has emerged from my testing. As a lever's pivot passes the 9:00 position of the drum, that lever suddenly goes from lifting the lever leading it to being lifted by the lever lagging it. That requires that the lever passing the 9:00 drum position suddenly stop swinging in toward the axle and then reverse direction and begin swinging away from the axle! This is a big change in motion for the lever and I could not figure out how Bessler would have kept the rope connecting the 9:00 lever with the 7:30 lever from snapping or parts of both levers from actually being torn away. Now I realize how he managed to protect the ropes and these levers with a very clever, yet simple method of shock protection. Such a method would probably only occur to someone with experience as a clock or organ maker. No, it does not use springs!

    More testing after dinner tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Update. Mixed news to report. I did a thorough testing of my model # 1192 yesterday and was disappointed to see that its CoM was only offset, horizontally, about 0.04 inches from the center of the axle. That's about half of what I wanted to see which would translate into only half of the torque I am looking for the Merseberg wheel to have when scaled up. Even more disappointing was the failure of the CoM to remain on the wheel's descending side as the simulation was run. That means that the ascending side levers are still not shifting fast enough. Yet, there's something about that # 1185 model's perfect balance that I can't let go of yet. I'm convinced that it was a major stepping stone for Bessler on his way to the final design that did work. I will continue to work with variations of model # 1185 with the hope that I can increase the rate of shifting of its ascending side levers. Maybe an extra rope is needed or a rerouting of the ropes I already have. When it comes to chasing pm, one is either very close or a million miles away at any point in time. The only way to know for sure is to keep on building and testing. Every failure generates new ideas that might correct the problem and lead to victory.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Follow up to my last update. After I posted the last update, I realized that solving my 50% reduction in axle torque was actually very simple: just double the mass of the weights, levers, and spring constants! However, this does present a somewhat disturbing situation when the mass is scaled up for use in the 12 foot diameter Merseberg wheel. Previously, I mentioned that I was convinced that wheel used a total of 32 four lb weights which had a mass of 128 lbs (two weights at the end of each of its 16 levers). The levers' total mass was about half of that or 64 lbs which then gave a total mass for all of the weights and levers of 192 lbs. That seemed "reasonable" to me. However, if I double it, then that means the Merseberg wheel would have had a total of 64 four lb weights in it (four cylindrical lead weights at the end of each of its 16 levers) that weighed 256 lbs with 16 larger levers weighing in at 128 lbs for a total weight + lever mass of 384 lbs. That seems like a lot to me, but it would deliver that axle torque of about 36 to 40 in-lbs that I was looking for and which was suggested by some of the tests of the wheel. This means the gross weight of the entire Merseberg wheel after the axle, pivots, drum components, and ropes and springs were added in would probably be somewhere between 500 and 600 lbs which I guess could be supported by a six foot long wooden axle that was 5 inches in diameter. I had a ranch style wooden railing on my property once that consisted of cylindrical wooden rails held between upright posts. The rails were about 8 ft in length and 5 inches in diameter. A friend visited me who weighted about 300 lbs at the time and decided to sit in the middle of the topmost rail. I was nervous that the rail would crack in half, but it held up fine and I don't even think it flexed.

    As far as the problem of the sinking CoM with my model # 1192 is concerned, I decided to carefully review the simulation of its drop to the punctum quietus and noticed that it actually did have descending side locational stability for almost half of the model wheel's 45 degree segment of rotation! So it was a partial success. I've studied the wheel's design and think I see why I got partial stability and how I can achieve complete stability. It requires a modification of the design that changes the way a single set of ropes interconnects the levers. My confidence is beginning to rise again.

    Onward to model # 1193!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS. I did not mention this above, but if each of the two one directional wheels inside of the Merseberg wheel had weights and levers with a total mass of 192 lbs, then they would have been applying their weight, horizontally, from the center of the axle onto their descending side by a distance of only 0.16 inches! That's right, the center of mass of that huge wheel was only displaced, horizontally, about 1/6 of an inch from the center of the axle. Seems incredible, but a 192 lb CoM there would be able to deliver the torque figure I'm looking for. I have to go where the numbers are taking me...not where I think is "reasonable". Overcoming one's mechanical prejudices while pm chasing is definitely not an easy thing to do!

      Delete
  14. "Onward to model # 1193!"

    Yes, YES, YES !!

    The inexorable march toward 'Re-set' ever-continues.

    (If K.B. does not dally J.C., when he returns, may be treated to THE NEW model #1 report. Now, how very neat would THAT be?)

    Truly, the whole world watches with all breaths abated, each hanging upon every word's letter as it appears, this compliments of the sheer, utter fecundity of K.B.'s. I am sure of it.

    Exciting times, these are.

    J.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Once again, I can assure you, James, that there will be no "resets". If I make it to model # 1200 and am not 100% convinced that I do, finally, have "it", then I will be calling it quits. I will shut off the lights in KBRC (that's my "Ken's Bessler Research Center" from "another free energy site"), chain up the front gate, and hang up a large sign that reads "Closed-No Trespassers Allowed". Then it's off for a long and well deserved vacation for me. If I can't find "it" in the next 8 models, then I won't find it in the next 800 or 8000 models (yes, I believe that I am that close!). Sooner or later everything, research projects, people, empires, stars, and even our local universe itself, must come to an end. Only the infinite cosmos and, of course, the concept of pm are truly eternal.

    Mini Update. I did a bit of poking around with model # 1193 a while ago and am convinced that the reattachment of only a single rope will turn it into a runner! Stay tuned, folks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken you sound like a mad man. You can never quit and you know it. If 1200 comes and no success, take off, recharge your batteries, then get back to the fight. Maybe with 1201 or maybe using magnets, but don't say you'll hang up your hat for good.

      Delete
    2. Didn't Dr. Werner von Braun say something like "You're a crackpot until you hit the jackpot"? Something tells me Ken will be hitting that jackpot before he reaches #1200.

      Delete
    3. Well, K.B., all this sounds fair enough.

      Perhaps the very last try WILL be 'the one'.

      What concerns me most is . . . will The Cosmic Vault continue-on and be added-to? It's name, it's content, it's look and promise are all outstanding in my view, and from which I've never departed opinion-wise.

      All here would likely benefit by taking a good long look there.

      J.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the kind remarks about my website, James. I haven't added to it in years and now prefer to just publish my thoughts in book form or sprinkle them about the internet on various forums and blogs. I should mention that much of what is on that website was extensively rewritten and expanded and included in my last published book (which I have not had time to add to the list of ones on my website's pages). That volume is titled "Essays from the Edge of Science" and is available on Amazon.

      Update. Last night, after spending some "quality time" with the second DT portrait, a clue that I have puzzled over for years suddenly made perfect sense to me. Because of it, I realized that part of my levers needed to be changed a bit and I just spent an hour making a new "source" model or template for use with the remaining models I'll be working with. That source model is now # 1194 and, once completed, will be immediately used to make # 1195. That previously "unseen" clue by me explains exactly why the ring and middle fingers of Bessler in the two portraits (on his left hand) appear to be crossing. It is probably one of the most important clues in the portraits. It is also, I believe, the final clue one must correctly interpret before his next modification of a prototype wheel leads to success!

      I will soon be only six models away from the finish line. I'm kind of like a race horse coming down the homestretch with an enormous prize to be won. I'm just hoping and praying that I don't break a leg ten yards before I cross the finish line! That would really be tragic considering the thousands of hours of research that I've put into this project over the decades.

      Delete
  16. " devide " is the word that comes to mind . perhaps the same respective mass(es) arranged on the periphery and some clever way to have the local weights influence each other (themselves) ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, you placed this word between quotation marks. Why? Is it a new one?

      If so, I am really keen to know what it might mean.

      Thanks a bunch.

      James

      Delete
    2. Devide? Or did you mean Divide?

      JC

      Delete
    3. I meant divide ... meaning , from his ( Bessler's ) words i think he was dividing the weights somehow . It seems like he says in the part of AP where it begins with Silence still etc,. he says (imo) that the weights being more or less even or with a little more where you would not expect it to be doesn't matter .

      Delete
    4. Here I am discussing nothing specific , just a feeling I get from reading . In another part of his writing Bessler talks about adding weight as if it is the wrong thing to do ( here and there ) ... in other words it's what you subtract . That's my thought process ( that is ) whether we know it or not Bessler was telling us how to do it .

      Delete
  17. Update. My last minute push to the finish line suddenly hit an unexpected detour! I was going to base model # 1195 on # 1194 which was a "source" model and then begin the final and rigorous testing of # 1195 with the hope of finally having "it". Then, during another analysis of the second DT portrait clues, I noticed something which I previously had not. It was yet another clue that was very subtly there and, incredibly, was repeated in the first DT portrait! I had to follow it up and it led to another modification of my model wheel's levers. So, # 1195 is yet another second "source" model which must also be tested. I now have only five models left to go before I call it quits and, hopefully, the testing of one of these two remaining "source" models will be the correct one that works. Just like Bessler to throw a weary reverse engineer a final curve ball to make things as difficult as possible! Yes, he wanted to make sure that whoever finally correctly interpreted his DT portrait clues would have to really work hard to do so. Almost as hard as he did during a decade long research effort to achieve success.

    I'm now using a super accurate method to place the attachment points to my model wheels' drums and levers and, while doing so, it occurred to me that there is a single "adjustment" that can be made to the springs at a certain position of the drum that will allow one to make a Bessler type imbalanced pm wheel using weights and levers of various masses. This adjustment just requires stretching the springs at the 9:00 position until the levers there achieve a particular critical angle. Once that is done for all eight levers, they will automatically be counter balanced around the drum and will maintain the imbalance of their weights and levers as drum rotation takes place. If I find success, then, when I finally reveal Bessler's design, this simple adjustment will be obvious.

    Only five models to go and I will either achieve total victory or crushing defeat. I remain confident of the former outcome at this point in time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Update. I did a little work with "source" model # 1194 today after I had renamed it # 1196. First the "good" news. All of its levers are shifting very smoothly and continuously throughout the 45 degree segment of test rotation. However, I did not do the all important CoM stability test on the model. I still want to do some work with the second modified "source" model, # 1195, whose lever shape is in agreement with those last minute DT portrait clues I found. It's that second source model which I am now very convinced is "it".

      Another surprise emerged from today's wheel testing. Above I said that there was a single "adjustment" that one could make that would allow one to use any weight / lever masses in a design. I was wrong! There is a precise relationship between the masses of the weights at the ends of the levers, the mass of the levers, and the spring constant of the springs Bessler used. If one does not have this precise relationship in his design, then it will not display the perfect balance of model # 1185 and it definitely will not work. Fortunately, I have that correct mathematical relationship and am now just working on the final arrangement of coordinating ropes in the design. Only four attempts left for me at this point. I'm like a rider on a merry go round who only has one final chance at grabbing the brass ring before the ride stops and he has to get off (in case anybody does not know what happens when you manage to grab the brass ring, it means you get another free ride). That brass ring is coming up fast and my sweating, trembling hand is straining out to grab it!

      Delete
    2. K.B. I would think that, since the remaining models are ever-dwindling, perhaps a 'b' or 'c' sub model might in order, this if you are getting real results. Maybe Providence has arranged the # 1200 IS to be the final, Triumphal One.

      As numeralogically reduced, I believe that 1200 comes to "3" which, of course, is "The Key".

      Best of luck.

      James

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the well wishes, James. Yes, I too have noticed that everything seems to be leading up to the number 1200. This, of course, immediately reminds me of the hands on a clock slowly creeping toward the 12:00 position on the dial. But, is it to be 12 noon or 12 midnight? If 12 noon, that would represent victorious success in finding the secret imbalanced pm wheel mechanism Bessler used and definitely the high point of my lifetime research into various "exotic" subjects. If 12 midnight, however, then that would represent crushing failure and definitely one of the low points of my lifetime research efforts...literally, decades and thousands of hours wasted!

      Powerful stuff this numerology and no wonder Bessler was so heavily involved with it. Sometime in the current week I will finally know which 12:00 it is to be for me.

      Delete
  18. How enyone can be sure about what will really happen in world (economy... Industries... Goverments... !!Weather?! ...) when "it" will be reavealed?! It will be not predictable. We may talk about it here that all will be ok, or dream "good dreams" for our selves, but realyty may go 180". Ok, maybe this is "old topic", but world is not same place anymore, when about this was talked. Have anyone here master degree in economics or what ever social related science. Who can figure out some numbers ... Or some political military analyser, who can say what will dothose countries who have oil/gas. ... Opinion of only one person we can not take here like 100 % sure. There need hundred "specialist" opinions. But finaly it will be just "theory" that things may go 50% this way.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, anon, we don't know how others will react, but we simply cannot just bury the successful wheel, we have take chance and let the world know....and hope for the best.

      JC

      Delete
    2. From my study of Bessler's wheels, I am sure that they will only have limited application. Their main purpose, however, is to prove that imbalanced or "overbalanced" pm wheels are physically possible. Once the mainstream scientific world realizes that, there will be a scramble to see if Bessler's original design can be improved upon to greatly increase its power output or the rate at which it can extract the energy of its weights to perform external work. If that can be done, then Bessler's wheels will lead to something important. If not, then they will remain interesting curiosities that various technology museums around the world will want to put on display for their visitors. All of the kids out there will want a model version to build and play with. And, we can, finally, look forward to a quality movie or tv series about Bessler so that the world can be acquainted with his most interesting life and times. I can't tell at this point in time exactly what will happen, say, five or ten years from now with regard to this subject. If I manage to announce success this week, then, no doubt, we will have some very interesting years ahead of us!

      Delete
    3. K.B. you are quite the optimist. I wish that I were equally so but, my cynical Brann side tends to rule mostly.

      Seeming contrary to this, I think Bessler's finally realized wheels will produce more very nicely, and be scalable fore-to-aft so as to increase output.

      Poor Johann, I believe, was saddled by having to keep all under wraps - well hidden. If he had not suffered-so on account of such a constraint, very much more power he could and would have made available, I am sure of it.

      Well, onward and upward.

      - James

      Delete
  19. It would seem that you have now returned, John.

    Care to give us a little preview as to what the next topic is to be?

    J.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There must not to forget Bessler words: then bigger the wheel, then more output power it gives! When watch todays windfarms, hundreds meters big, and how quicly (slowly) they "work". They are working allready in some 5.....12 rpm only. So there is technology for producing power from gc (gravity converter). Even there must do downshifting for speed, do get more power. It is then allready "against" windfarmers also. So there will be not only petrol companies against you, but also all "alternative energy" compwnies also. There is more thoughts , but I do not dare do share them here, pubicly.

    Eastlander

    ReplyDelete

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...