Just back from an excellent few days in Spain and I was unable to think of a subject to blog about so this is some thoughts I had on catching up with comments here and on the BW forum.
I read with tremendous sympathy and understanding, the numerous expressions of optimism, both here and on the BW forum, of all we glass-half-full researchers, experimenters and builders each on the verge of success and barely able to contain our utter excitement that it is all but in the bag.......only to find some minor problem that we must adjust before success crowns our endeavours!
I read with tremendous sympathy and understanding, the numerous expressions of optimism, both here and on the BW forum, of all we glass-half-full researchers, experimenters and builders each on the verge of success and barely able to contain our utter excitement that it is all but in the bag.......only to find some minor problem that we must adjust before success crowns our endeavours!
In each instance when I read the post I cannot help but think the writer's confidence is misplaced and they are doomed to failure. That isn't me being mean and nasty, it's just that, as I'm sure is the case with others, I am equally certain that I have the solution and as far as I can see, it is definitely not the same as anyone else's. There are numerous deliberately vague descriptions and they all look good, but they all have one failing - they don't work. And anyway, surely we can't all be right can we?
This brings me to another point; I understand exactly how Bessler's wheel worked and why, and yet I sense in many reports that the writers don't actually know how Bessler's wheel worked and are still trying numerous variations all based on the simple OB wheel firmly rejected by Bessler. I think we can assume after more than three hundred years of failure that that is a proven unworkable configuration.
I'm also surprised that people still design with eight weights and levers, why? We know the two-way wheels emitted the sounds of about eight weights landing on the side towards which the wheel turned. But that proves nothing; there could be double the number of components in those wheels, compared to the earlier one-way versions and why build the more complicated two-way wheel when the simpler one-way version must be easier? Or they might have been padded to reduce some or all of the critical noises that might have given a clue, or had additional sound producers to confuse. In which case I think it's better to try to work out how many you think are needed and ignore the supposed vague clues offered by witnesses.
I see the question of, what might the one word have been that Bessler was afraid might reveal the secret, has resurfaced on the BW forum? To me it is obviously the number five. He never revealed it but my goodness, he does show it encoded in so many places you'd have be blind not to see it has great importance.
My own efforts to finish the wheel have been somewhat delayed by my little trip to Spain but now I'm back and eager to get this thing finished. I have no excuse for not finishing it and I am determined to do so as quickly as I can, subject to my crappy engineering equipment and skills! One problem I am in the middle of resolving concerns a lever which is not falling quickly enough, but the answer is clear to me and I have to make an adjustment to its task and reduce the load on it by adjusting its gearing. This will have negative consequences, I am sure but I will cross that bridge when and if I get there.
Rereading the above, I can see how similar my expressed confidence in knowing the solution looks just like every other person's belief in their imminent success. I'm seriously considering sharing what I know with someone who I feel that I can trust unreservedly, just to get another opinion on my theory. I have no doubt he will be convinced but then there is always that tiny area of doubt. Am I deluding myself? Probably!
JC
My own efforts to finish the wheel have been somewhat delayed by my little trip to Spain but now I'm back and eager to get this thing finished. I have no excuse for not finishing it and I am determined to do so as quickly as I can, subject to my crappy engineering equipment and skills! One problem I am in the middle of resolving concerns a lever which is not falling quickly enough, but the answer is clear to me and I have to make an adjustment to its task and reduce the load on it by adjusting its gearing. This will have negative consequences, I am sure but I will cross that bridge when and if I get there.
Rereading the above, I can see how similar my expressed confidence in knowing the solution looks just like every other person's belief in their imminent success. I'm seriously considering sharing what I know with someone who I feel that I can trust unreservedly, just to get another opinion on my theory. I have no doubt he will be convinced but then there is always that tiny area of doubt. Am I deluding myself? Probably!
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
I'm surely not able to answer your last question also as you might not be able to do for yourself. Your belief is quite strong, so constantly, thus it could be high interesting what you've there. But from my perspective I could say something similar. I too believe to have a principle for continuos motion of a wheel that isn't comparable to all other classical arrangements for such machines. Since more than 4 years I kept it because for me there's no other legal way. Finally, how can I say for 100% before I've proven it with a physical model? I simply can't - as strong as my belief is however.
ReplyDeleteNo number five, no noises, not a good nor a bad number of pairs, no sudden raising. That is, what describes the characteristics of my principle.
Good luck further on! We need the wheel!
You are right S.O.P.M.. we need the wheel now. By the way what does S.O.P.M. stand for - S.O. Perpetual Motion?
DeleteJC
Secret Of Perpetual Motion. It's also the name of my YouTube channel that I created in 2007 where I had myself completely dedicated for life to find it, the secret. In the BW forum I'm "jonnynet".
DeleteThanks jonnynet,
DeleteJC
Welcome back, John. I hope you're well tanned, rested, and ready for victory!
ReplyDeleteNo, we can't all be right, but I'm hoping and praying at least one of us (me, of course!) is right! This subject desperately needs a breakthrough to keep it from permanently dying out and being dumped into the heavily littered graveyard containing such things as methods for turning lead into gold, the phlogiston theory of matter, proofs that the Earth really is flat, etc., etc.
You stated above: "...writers (I'm one of them!)...are still trying numerous variations all based on the simple OB wheel firmly rejected by Bessler. I think we can assume after more than three hundred years of failure that that is a proven unworkable configuration." I, of course, have to immediately and vociferously disagree that Bessler rejected the OB approach or that we can safely assume that approach is "...a proven unworkable configuration". I assume you are basing it on this often repeated quote from AP:
"Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through bitter experience."
Bessler does not state here that OB does not work or that he did not use it. He is only stating, imo, that it's very difficult to do and it took him a lot of work to understand and master the principle of using OB in an imbalanced wheel. You also mention something about him saying that a "single word" would betray his secret. I think you are making the mistake of taking this too literally. It is only an expression and implies that he had to maintain strict secrecy about the many details of his design. Thrust me, John, there is no single word that would have given away Bessler's secret imbalanced pm mechanism. If (and I pray I do) find success in my next few models, it will, literally, take me a somewhat large volume to fully disclose all of the details of Bessler's "simple" mechanism. Yes, it is very simple, but it requires a precision in the shapes and parameters of its parts that must have been a nightmare for Bessler to work out considering the conditions under which he labored. He wanted a payment equal to a ton of gold at the time for his wheel design, but I have no doubt that he earned it!
K.B., all very nicely put, as sometimes usual. (?)
Delete"No, we can't all be right, but I'm hoping and praying at least one of us (me, of course!) is right! . . ." - K.B.
It is good, I think, to hope and pray for positive results, especially if this leads to substantial confidence (faith) that the hoped and prayed-for item finally does materialize.
Well, my own faith in the regard that it relates to Bessler's secret finally coming into our Reality, is strong indeed - that one of us here SHALL SURELY effect that vitally-needed trick.
" "Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through bitter experience." " - K.B.
And, let us ALL never forget this one thing as deriving logically from the famous quote of brother Johann's: To not will save many thousands of hours of attempting to climb that poisoned weed which is the 'Height-For-Width Tree of Impossibilities'. It is a nasty distracting creature equipped all-round with the thorns of multifarious disappointments, and of millions of man hours always to be wasted, seeming an alluring promising thing of which it is not any at all, and coming in a thousand-and-one cruelly deceiving guises.
Verily, verily it is so.
" You also mention something about him saying that a "single word" would betray his secret. I think you are making the mistake of taking this too literally. . . ." - K.B.
Here, opinion-wise, we seem to diverge slightly, K.B.. This secret betrayal DOES (my faith here-asserting most powerfully) reduce to but "ein worte."
But, WHICH "one word" might this be?
Well, if pressed to answerment by such a pointed query, I would say that that would be up to The One that knows to reveal one day, in some way . . . and let it go at that. I think that would be found satisfactory?
And, in-closing, happy concordance seemingly reigns between we two hereat:
". . . , but it requires a precision in the shapes and parameters of its parts that must have been a nightmare for Bessler to work out considering the conditions under which he labored. . . ."
Indeed! A wise and apt speculation, I think.
Onward and upward.
James
Ken, I probably could have phrased it better, when I wrote above that many people are 'still trying numerous variations all based on the simple OB wheel firmly rejected by Bessler'. I used the word 'simple' to separate the basic OB design from that which included OB but with an added feature which permitted continuous OB to be apparent.
DeleteMy own design does include an OB component but without the additional extra ingredient it will turn no more than all the others so far resolutely stationary. That's the plan anyway.
JC
No problem, John, and I'm not offended. Yes, I am a "writer" (like you) and I have tried many, many "variations" of the OB principle in an effort to find a design that works. What I think is unique about Bessler's design is the details of how he uses the dropping of weights in one part of his wheels to trigger the lifting of weights in other parts. The result, obviously, is a wheel that remains imbalanced despite its rotation. I look forward to finally learning the details of your design (as I'm sure you do of mine) and the "extra ingredient" that allows it to operate.
DeleteIF I might be allowed to add my voice of relative insignificance to the doubtless growing chorus to follow . . .
ReplyDeleteWelcome back, John.
(Honestly, I just played my pseudo-Brann self out in attempting to do some little justice to K.B.'s worthy post so, I'll just leave anymore to some later effort?)
James
Thanks James! It's good to be back.
DeleteJC
I think we all agree that the Bessler Wheel was overbalanced, or maybe better described as out of balance. However, this does not mean weights had to be moved outward on the descending side and inward on the ascending side as Bessler said won't work. An out of balance condition can be achieved by moving weights along the periphery of the wheel.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn AP, Bessler writes: "...anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly." I think this line makes it clear that the weights on the wheel's ascending side were swinging it or "gravitating" toward the axle and, then, after that began "climbing back" or swinging back toward the rim of the drum again. Most imbalanced pm wheel designers, imo, make the mistake of thinking that the weights at the ends of the levers were swinging about independently of each other. That approach wastes the gravitational potential energy being lost by the ascending side weights and levers by turning it into kinetic energy which is then dissipated as sound and heat inside of the wheel and, consequently, made unavailable to move weights around in the remainder of the wheel. Bessler made sure that as little of this energy was lost as possible by temporarily storing most of it in stretched springs or even using it directly through ropes to lift other weights attached to their levers.
DeleteCould Bessler have been referring to the 'virtual mass' or CoM as the weight that gravitates from the center and up? Maybe.
DeleteStart with a straight cross bar with weights at each end, with the weights being at 9 and 3. If the crossbar hinges at the axis so that each half of the crossbar can rotate upwards, say with the weights ending up at 10 and 2, then the CoM moves vertically upward from the center. The crossbar is now in an out of balance state and can rotate. Now assume the crossbar rotates 180 degrees, the CoM is now below the axis with the weights at 8 and 4. If the crossbar hinges in the opposite direction so the weights move from 8 and 4 to 10 and 2, then we are back in the initial out of balance state and the crossbar is ready to rotate.
The benefit to this type of approach is you do away with the conservation of angular momentum and you don't have to deal with CF.
Add a 2nd crossbar perpendicular to the other and you have constant overbalance. The prime mover would do the lifting or rotating of the weight levers.
DeleteAnonymous, you are forgetting that Bessler stated that there was nothing attached to the axles of his wheels such as the hinged crossbars you mention. In fact, I think he even had a special hole in one of the sides of the Merseberg wheel's drum so that any critics among the patrons attending his wheel demonstrations could approach the wheel and insert a hand into the drum near the axle and actually physically feel the axle to verify that nothing was attached to it. No, all of the "working" parts of Bessler's wheels were located toward the outer part of the drum near the rim.
DeleteA crossbar with a hole in it for the axle is not 'attached' to the axle. It would turn freely on the axle, or if part of the crossbar were attached to the axle (to make it turn), the hinging would take place slightly away from the axle. Anyway, this was just an example. There are many ways to produce the out of balance effect by shifting weights along the periphery. I'm simply stating a different way to produce OB without dealing with the effects of angular momentum or CF.
DeleteIn my opinion, the wheel consists of two major components, a simple OB wheel to maintain rotation, and the prime mover which produces excess force (OU) as it rotates, but is unable to rotate itself. Together they form the wheel (MT11). In my opinion this is the ingredient you are missing Ken. The clues you may have uncovered give a good OB wheel, but the missing ingredient is the elusive prime mover.
Additionally ...
DeleteIn MT9, with short weight poles/levers, the weights move (initially) radially outward, encountering the effects of angular momentum and when the come back in, CF. Whereas in MT10, with longer weight poles, the weights move more tangentially and less radially, thus lessening the effects of angular momentum and later CF. Bessler hints as much. "... the weight-poles are more curved and longer. The principle is good ...". Ken you may have uncovered Bessler's true OB wheel, but not the PM. I would think this would be well hidden, but there.
In the design I have there is only one "prime mover". It is the weighted levers moving from 6 to 9 o'clock in a CW rotating drum. It is the loss of gravitational potential energy by those structures that provides all of the energy needed to continuously lift the CoM of all of the weights and levers at a rate that is exactly equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction to the rate at which the rotating drum is trying to make the CoM drop. If my "mass diminution hypothesis" is correct, then there was a very subtle "flow" of mass out of the ascending side weights and levers and into the other weights and levers and, of course, into all of the various other structures of a wheel. This redistribution of mass was invisible and it could eventually flow right out of a wheel's axle and into any moving parts of machinery attached to the axle.
DeleteUpdate. In the last blog I mentioned how my Bessler wheel research had finally come down to two possible designs which used two slightly different shapes for their levers. The second of those levers was one based on a last clue that I very recently noticed in both of the DT portraits! Anyway, I got around to testing the first of these lever shapes yesterday and was amazed at how smoothly and fully the various levers of the wheel design using it (model # 1196) were shifting during a 45° test segment of drum rotation. I have never seen this type of persistent motion in any of my previous models. I did not, however, perform a CoM location stability test on this model. Currently, I am beginning to set up model # 1197 which will use the second of the two possible shapes for the levers Bessler used. It is this second lever shape which I am very much intuitively convinced is "the" correct one that Bessler used because of the simplicity of its geometry. I'm sure that, like # 1196, model # 1197's levers will also display the same smooth and full shifting. However, this model will definitely be tested to verify that the location of its CoM is remaining on the wheel's descending side throughout a 45° test segment of drum rotation. If it passes that very critical test, I will then announce (here!) that I have achieved "tentative" success and note the exact day, date, and time of the tentative rediscovery of Bessler's previously lost imbalanced pm wheel mechanism. Why only "tentative" one might ask? Because, I have to make sure that the design still works when the 3 foot diameter model is scaled up to the 12 foot diameter version used in the Merseberg wheel. If things work out right, then I should be doing the final CoM positional stability test on the 12 foot diameter wheel with model # 1200 (Bessler would have loved the numerology of all of this!). If that final test is successful, then I will be "officially" declaring (again here!) that I now consider the Bessler wheel mystery to be solved! Stay tuned, folks...that light at the end of the tunnel is rapidly approaching!
ReplyDeleteI must say, K.B., that it IS getting exciting, as the last model's number grows ever-nearer.
DeleteSurprisingly to you (as I suppose), I hope it WORKS!
J.
Thanks for the well wishes, James. Yes, let's all hope and pray that model # 1197 proves to be "it" or a working virtual model of that original 3 foot diameter prototype wheel design that Bessler finally found at the house of Richters sometime, most likely, at the end of the year 1711. Success with this model is, imo, the key to all future research with Bessler's wheels. As Bessler wrote in AP:
Delete"For I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile."
I'm now, I believe, very close to having my heart "leap for joy" or having it ripped out and shredded into a hundred pieces! All depends upon the results of a single crucial test which is that CoM position stability test the failures of which doomed all of my previous almost 1200 models. Maybe this time, finally, things will be different and I will be able to report tentative victory in my quest to successfully reverse engineer Bessler's wheels. I did some work on model # 1197 yesterday and, so far, everything is looking fine. I'll try to do some more in a while after I rest a bit. I had a tiring day today and I might have to delay further testing until tomorrow. Hopefully, I'll know for sure what the status of model # 1197 is by the weekend or early next week at the latest. If this model fails, then there really will be no point in me continuing any further and I might have to wrap things up at that time without having even made it to model # 1200!
K.B. You just posted THIS following but it does not show anywhere, so I am reproducing it here.
Delete"In the design I have there is only one "prime mover". It is the weighted levers moving from 6 to 9 o'clock in a CW rotating drum. It is the loss of gravitational potential energy by those structures that provides all of the energy needed to continuously lift the CoM of all of the weights and levers at a rate that is exactly equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction to the rate at which the rotating drum is trying to make the CoM drop. If my "mass diminution hypothesis" is correct, then there was a very subtle "flow" of mass out of the ascending side weights and levers and into the other weights and levers and, of course, into all of the various other structures of a wheel. This redistribution of mass was invisible and it could eventually flow right out of a wheel's axle and into any moving parts of machinery attached to the axle."
K.B. This would seem to be that 'acid test' of your M.D. hypothesis. If it were to work as you have described, it should surely turn, no doubt about it. Onward and upward.
James
Thanks for your effort to preserve my post, but I see it four posts above yours. Maybe something went wrong and it was only temporarily not downloaded to your browser.
DeleteI'm very confident in the reality of the "M. D. hypothesis" because it would seem to be the only way to rationalize how Bessler's wheels could have continuously outputted mechanical energy without utilizing a "conventional" internal power source. Many will deny its validity because they can not accept that a weight moving around a closed path in a gravity field could continuously loose mass. Yet that is exactly what happens to the weights on the ascending side of one of Bessler's wheels. They continuously pass their mass onto the springs they stretch and then that mass is passed back to the weight to raise it when it passes the 9 o'clock position of the drum. In fact, all of the weights past 9 o'clock are made to move a bit closer to their rim stops and the result is that the CoM of all of the weights and levers is continuously raised as the drum turns about it and tries to lower it. The result is that the CoM remains, more or less, fixed in space and the wheel, being imbalanced, continues to rotate and can accelerate up to a certain rate or perform external work. Now, let's just hope that, finally, model # 1197 will show this principle in operation. If it does, then building a working physical prototype based on the wm2d model should not be that difficult.
Re the "additional extra ingredient" that John mentions above, I've also been looking at what else the Earth does, besides providing gravity, that could be exploited.
ReplyDeleteI've recently had a bit more success with exploiting the fact that any mass on the Earth's surface doesn't follow the straight-line trajectory that a truly inertial (i.e. fully weightless) mass would follow. For example, at the equator, after one second, it has deviated vertically by 1.6958 cm, and has a vertical velocity of 0.033916 m/s. After two seconds, it's 6.7831 cm and 0.06783 m/s. And so on.
I think it's right to combine this, judiciously, with gravitational attraction.
The Earth provides two things that can be exploited. A pull (gravity) and a hard stop that you can push off of or pivot around. If you were in space with another person, and the other person did to you what the Earth does, think of the effect on that person. Hint, that's why a pendulum behaves the way it does.
DeleteUpdate. I just finished the "construction" of model # 1197 and did some preliminary testing of it which consisted of letting the sim run through a loop every 45 degrees of drum rotation (this trick helps minimize the amount of ram used by my aging pc). As expected all of the weighted levers finished the segment of rotation with the same exact orientations they had as the beginning. The shifting of the model wheel's levers was smooth and "coordinated". However, I did not do that critical CoM position stability test yet. I will save that for the weekend. Whether or not the CoM stays on the wheel's descending side during the entire segment of rotation really depends upon all of the moving levers shifting at the exact right speeds with respect to each other. So far, from just eyeballing my design, it looks like they are, but, as I've learned the hard way for about 1200 models now, looks can be very deceiving especially when one has a situation where the location of the CoM is very sensitive to the coordinated motions of the wheel's eight weighted levers. Well, soon enough I will know what the status of this model is. If it fails, I will have only three models left to find a way to save it before I will have to, regrettably, call it quits. Right now I can't see any possible way to "improve" the model. It uses all of the clues I've found in the two DT portraits that I am convinced describe Bessler's secret imbalanced pm wheel mechanics. Let's hope this is it!
ReplyDeleteThe latest update or yours, K.B., is detailed but, can be followed with a little study. Since these are nearing the ultimate version, it becomes all-the-more interesting to myself at very least.
DeleteAll of those clues you refer-to ARE real (I am really sure of this.) and are of the greatest utility if understood and utilized properly. I guess some do and some do not.
"I've found in the two DT portraits that I am convinced describe Bessler's secret imbalanced pm wheel mechanics." - K.B.
Absolutely.
We await the positive results which are sure to come.
James
John wrote:
ReplyDelete"Rereading the above, I can see how similar my expressed confidence in knowing the solution looks just like every other person's belief in their imminent success. I'm seriously considering sharing what I know with someone who I feel that I can trust unreservedly, just to get another opinion on my theory. I have no doubt he will be convinced but then there is always that tiny area of doubt. Am I deluding myself? Probably!"
I think the problem is the Bessler's Wheel Devil --> first cousin to the Printer's Devil that's giving Jim such problems on the Forums. :-)
Frank, you have tailed your one-line comment as smiley-faced. The subtle aspect of this humor (here 'humour,') is not lost on this reader.
DeleteNow, why this?
There seems here, on this blog of instant, no context by which an on-looker might come to understanding, of it's meaning partially or even semi-partially.
"More's the pity!"
For these debilitated, ight you not, say, 'flesh-it-out' with some few needed detailage bits?
Of this, for an instance: The "Jim" you refer-to, might this be as-in jim_mich? Seems to me antient and scratchy olde self as likely-so but, really can't be sure, can I?
NOTE: I removed from the list your own august name from the "No contact" list, over at jolly olde BWF (is it not now just a barrel full of fun, smart tough monkeys? Are they ever to find what they so chatteringly-seek, actually? Here, me opinion on it is to remain as 'close-hold'), and have substituted an other now found SO very richly deserving of OBLIVION-ABSOLUTE. (for, let us all recall the pure truth that "Stupid IS as stupid DOES.") This also serves to maintain servingly, the oh-so-appropriate needed FIVE, these being-all . . . surprise . . . Fivers!!!
This new One's identity shall not be revealed ever. Oh-no for that "would be telling" would it not, and over and above all THINGS-OTHER, I am not 'a tailler.' (Know whata mean?)
Mega CHEERS to ya an yers!!!
James
There is an odd psychological effect to which pm chasers are subject. Often their confidence in their particular approach will be sky high as long as two conditions are fulfilled: a) they have just completed a lot of preliminary work that convinces them that their latest design has to be "it", and b) they have not yet performed the final test to determine if they have, in fact, found "it". During this time they are in a sort of euphoric state where all things seem possible and they will fantasize to no end about how the world and their lives will change for the better once they perform the final verifying test and proudly announce their discovery publicly. This condition is so joyful that the pm chaser will actually not want to risk loosing it by actually performing that final test which, intellectually, he realizes probably has next to a zero percent probability of being successful. Realistically, he wonders what is the chance that he, out of thousands (or even millions!) of pm chasers over the centuries has finally found that ever spinning pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Failure, which is almost certain, is the last thing he needs to be added to his previously accumulated mountain of failed attempts. The future verifying tests that fail and increase the height of that mountain are intolerable to experience or even contemplate. Yet, the day of reckoning must inevitably come and it can not be avoided forever no matter how much verbiage the pm chaser generates privately, online, or in his own mind. Then it's all or nothing. He either has an "it" that most will hail as a brilliant success or he has yet another failed pile of parts ready for disassembly and delivery to his scrap box. Pm chasing is not for those who like a life filled with quick and easy solutions. Pm chasing is for those who want to do what the "schmexperts" have been telling them all of their lives is a complete waste of time and casts doubts about their mental conditions and, by so doing, instantly turn the tables and make the schmexperts question their own self proclaimed wisdom, authority, and even sanity! The extremely rare successful pm chaser, like Bessler, knows a joy and satisfaction on Earth that surely rivals anything Heaven has to offer!
DeleteK.B. what you have just offered to us above, I find useful and excellent to any end of thought stimulation. It is mightily heavy with significance. No one could or would ever dare deny it.
DeleteI hope and trust that it is not to be but a prelude to something else to come disappointing?
Well, for the moment that thought being now put-to-the-side, this one stuck out for me:
". . . Pm chasing is not for those who like a life filled with quick and easy solutions. . . ." - K.B.
Man! Can I ever verify the correctness of that one! Two YEARS of studying one small model after changes, to come to understand what was right in my face for all of that period! Yikes. Patience? Oh yeah!
And, yet another unalloyed gem . . .
". . . He either has an "it" that most will hail as a brilliant success or he has yet another failed pile of parts ready for disassembly and delivery to his scrap box. . . ."
Again "here!, here!"
As I proclaimed so loudly re Vibrator and his abilities some pages back "HERE is writing" but now it is K.B.'s!
You have now become unchained and are courting POWER of expression and TRUTH! As allied together, these two cannot fail.
If, by some chance, your model #1200 does not go actually of it's very own self, then A BOOK on this very subject is in-order, I think. Without any doubt whatever, you would be THE one to do it, judging by what you have just offered above.
"Seeing IS believing."
Take heart, K.B. the Great Besslerian Miracle itself is slated to appear very soon, I truly believe.
All one has to do is discover our favorite chap's primum mobile, and all the rest will just shoo right into that waiting, open bag. Piece-a-cake! (As no other, this is THE 'toughie'.)
Such a work as that book should be at-the-ready for concurrent release, I think.
Onward and Upward !
James
Thank you kindly for the gracious commentary, James. Yes, I can speak about this psychological effect with conviction because that state of "euphoria" is exactly what I am experiencing right now. I have a tremendous amount of cumulative research behind my current model # 1197 and am only a single verifying test away from having "it" or "the" failure of a lifetime! I've been avoiding that final test so that it would not ruin my weekend, but come the new week, I will have to face the unforgiving, ice cold reality of mechanics. A world of "schmexperts" says what I have can not possibly work and most would be willing to bet their personal fortunes, if not lives, on that being so. On my side is a single man born over 300 years ago that had only a modest education and a life of hard work. I've decided to listen to him, however. Soon I will know if I made a wise or foolish choice.
DeleteWhat would be fascinating is if everyone who thought they had deciphered clues form JB's writings and pictures were to actually share those things in a "discussion forum". Especially if their last attempt lead to another failure.
ReplyDeleteThen two things would happen. There would be consensus for some of those findings because they would be corroborated by others who also found them and presented evidence, and so that would be rewarding for all.
There would be disagreement on others, but that might lead to later consensus with further discussion, which would also be rewarding for the individuals concerned. Precisely because they engaged with others in the analysis process, producing their evidence and making their case, that lead to an accord and PROGRESS.
Coincidentally, anon, your suggestion chimes with my current plan which I will explain in my next post.
DeleteJC
"We Can't All Be Right, Can We!"
ReplyDeleteWe Can't All Be Right, Can We?
Statistically an emphatic No. We can all be "right"eous though.
An excellent summary of our psychology Ken, and I am in full agreement with each stage you have described, particularly the part which merges with the euphoria which "is so joyful that the pm chaser will actually not want to risk loosing it by actually performing that final test which, intellectually, he realizes probably has next to a zero percent probability of being successful."
ReplyDeleteJC
Ah that intoxicating psycho-emotional turmoil... A prospective OU concept is an art work, inspired by ingenious self-consistency - Bessler's term "craftsmanship" is apposite. Like a story, poem or score, it almost designs itself, as Michelangelo's adage of merely releasing the sculpture from the marble.. but yet borne of an intellect which ever bears aloft the sword of Damocles over the labour of love it's created, and while most art works enjoy immunity from such rational scrutiny in their aesthetic evaluation, most of ours we know are doomed to functional worthlessness.
ReplyDeleteWhereas other ephemoral arts like sand or ice sculptures are mere unpretentious whimsy, their value only further validated by their inherent transience, we deign to wrestle Titans who might decide the fate of all.... but most probably, won't... that maddening trepidation of portentous kismet, perhaps the only perpetuity we can count on for sustenance. To walk with head in the clouds as the gormless extras around us queue for their lotto tickets.. "Do you know who I am? You may do soon..", barely biting our tongues in advance of that final, decisive bump back down to Earth..
But it's mostly harmless, and at least our hearts are in the right place! Don't give up Ken, just do what Bessler did - take a break and wait for the next brainstorm to roll in..
Very well put, Vibrator. It warms my soul to see that my earlier psychoanalysis of the state of the pm chaser's mind has triggered a wealth of pithy wisdom on this blog. One never sees these types of comments on "other free energy sites". I definitely made the right choice by coming here.
DeleteYou're a poet Mr V!
DeleteJC