I really enjoyed the contributions to this blog and the previous posting, so feel free to continue on this one.
It has been suggested that perhaps my wheel is already running and that I'm holding back the secret for some nefarious purpose, but the truth is so much more mundane. I recently put my house up for sale and as anyone who has done this knows, the place must be kept immaculate at all times for any potential purchasers to view it at its best. Consequentially my workshop has been tidied and my wheel hidden - I don't want any snoopers to see what I've been working on!
After a week the house was sold and I assumed that after eight weeks or so we would move out - wrong, the buyer changed his mind and backed out! I had just got the wheel back out, but now its back in hiding again and the house is back on the market and we await another series of house viewings. Until it is sold we cannot move to Spain.
In addition my beloved mother-in-law is having to sell her little bungalow to fund her remaining days in a nursing home. She's 93 and can't do it herself so guess who's getting her house ready for sale? Yes it's me again, getting two houses ready for sale and hoping to buy two more, one here and one in Spain!
So any revelations about my wheel actually working will be on hold until I can get to work on it again, but I am continuing to write up the details and will publish as soon as I have finally tested this wheel.
In the previous comment section it was suggested that we would not know if we had actually discovered the secret of Bessler's wheel rather than an alternative method of achieving the same result as he did. I have said this many times now but in response I will just say that my proof that I have discovered his secret relies totally on his clues, and they are not mere interpretations but a series of physical undeniable pieces of evidence. The proof is not dissimilar to a series of logical argument put forward by a lawyer in a court of law - or the chain of evidence published in support of a medical conclusion. We will know if we have Bessler's secret.
Also my claims that the number 5 is an important part of the Bessler wheel is routinely dismissed but I can assure you that is it a vital ingredient.
Finally I fear that I sound just like Ken and Oystein, and yet I have little or no knowledge of their clues any more than they know of mine, can all three of us be right? My feeling is that Oystein has genuine knowledge although whether it refers to the wheel's structure or relates to some other matter, I have no idea. For me Ken's code is harder to see, impossible in fact, for me. I placed what potential encoding I could find in the portraits on my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/part_2_portrait.html and also at the other portrait link on the same web site, it was not helpful in my opinion, but we are each convinced of the efficacy of our own pet theories and maybe we will each turn out right, after a fashion.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Wow! Selling two houses and buying two houses at almost the same time. I'm surprised you have time to even start another blog topic. Well, good thing you did or the last one may have shot right up to 1,000 posts. Seems everyone is unusually talkative at the moment, me included. Well, it's obvious that we all have our own unique set of "clues" which have convinced each of us that we are "the" one who "has it right". The ultimate test, however, is whether or not the clues we think we have lead to anything real; that is, a physical replication of one of Bessler's wheels. I have seen many, many pm chasers over the years on the web that were convinced they "had it right". I often wonder what happened to all of them and their devices that were going to revolutionize life on planet Earth. Maybe they were so embarrassed when they finally realized that they did not have "it" that they could no longer bear to show up on the internet using their real names or even previous usernames?! Actually, though, failure, although undesirable, is really nothing to be ashamed of. It proves that one is, at least, trying to get some results. I think of Thomas Edison who had to test over 2000 materials until he found one (a carbonized thread) that worked in his light bulbs. Suppose he had called it quits after 500 or 1,000 or 1,500 attempts? If he had, then I might be sitting here right now reading a book by oil lamp instead of using a nice Toshiba note book computer. Also, without the assistance of computer modeling / simulation software, I would be sketching pictures of wheels with a pencil and wondering if one might work if I ever got around to building it instead of being on the very brink of rediscovering Bessler's secret imbalanced pm wheel mechanism! I admire tenacity and my old high school coach was right when he said "A quitter never wins and a winner never quits!"
ReplyDeleteUpdate. A few hours ago I tested one of the last five wm2d model wheels I've made each of which incorporates the recently discovered lever modification and one of the last five possible 9:00 lever lifter rope attachment points. I tested model # 1243 (the last of the five) and, as expected, it failed to keep the CoM of its eight weights and levers on the descending side of the wheel during a 45 degree segment of motor assisted drum rotation. But, I noticed something most interesting as I inspected the motion of the CoM during the test. After 2.5 seconds it did drift over to the wheel's ascending side as it sailed through the punctum quietus, but it only traveled a short distance onto the ascending side before its stopped, hovered, and then flew back to its starting point on the descending side. This is something I have not seen before and I think it is a very good sign. Let's hope that the situation will improve as I approach the one model, # 1241, which I am convinced will be "the" one that works and which will keep the CoM permanetly "sequestered" on the wheel's descending side. Well, one hiding place eliminated and now that pesky pm mouse must be behind one of the remaining four left in the room. The cat that is stalking him is beginning to sweat and his pulse rate is elevating. The scent of pm mouse grows ever stronger in his nostrils.
0ystein, A working solution should be easy to demonstrate through drawings and mathematics. If I'm not mistaken, Einstein demonstrated Relativity using only mathematics, and aspects, such as slowing of time with motion were later demonstrated through mechanical experimentation. A Bessler Wheel is significantly less complicated mechanically and mathematically. What I am saying is, all you need to do is write up the workings of the wheel through drawings and mathematics, in book form if that is what you want, then publish. Leave the building to the engineers. After reading your latest post, I see your concerns, you are not fully confident of your findings. All I can say is, mathematics can prove the solution when you think you have it, and the published book will back up your rights to the discovery. Do what you will, I just hope you don't go down the same dead end path as Bessler.
ReplyDeleteI would buy the book cause I would love to know how it works.
DeleteBut, Anonymous, don't forget that a lot of "experts" have also been "proving" for centuries through drawings and mathematics alone that pm is impossible! In the absence of a working physical prototype, it would be nice if, at least, Oystein had a computer simulation that demonstrated his clue derived design worked. That approach is exactly the one I am now pursuing.
DeleteAll I can respond is that it was after I left Working Model behind, that my research started to pay off. To much valuable time was "wasted" (I also learned some things) by believing in adjustments, just that final magical adjustment.... just one more.. I was always lead away from the work that has to be done, if you want to discover Orffyreus` code.A code that has nothing to do with the values in WM2D. Thus I could now study all Bessler papers and all the external works that he knew. I then found something, something major, but that was not found in WM2D. Then I found more...not in WM2D...then even more... Every thing has it`s time. For now, my time is not inside WM2D.
DeleteWell, all I can say, Oystein, is that I wish you the best of luck with your approach. Mine is now focused entirely on the two DT portraits and the use of wm2d modeling. If I'm right, then my approach should lead to a working physical replication of one of Bessler's wheels. If I'm wrong, then it won't. Time will tell.
DeleteI understand what you say. I believe the math is the hardest part. Because you are on unknown territory. I have tried to identify the "loophole" by math. I have an idea, but no finished formula yet. I have spent many years calculating mechanical forces, and even Relativity for a while. I have found only 1 single possible loophole through these years! So far it seems like this kind of mechanism could be used to exploit such a loophole. The possible loophole for a gravity-driven vertical machine has to do with the following: For a system to have any chance of OU, the masses has to fall from a greater height than it is being lifted by the wheel (the wheels torque). Something else than the wheels counter-torque has to lift them And it have to do this without springs or stationary objects.It can`t exploit springs, CF nor "swing". So we are left with very few alternatives. The remaining alternatives is in great detail discussed in Machinen Tractate. Where Bessler show how he try to make the weights fall from a higher place. This means that it isn`t really the distance from the center that is the goal, but the falling height vs. lifted height. Thus Besslers comments about this distance from center. But when I say that a weight has to fall from a greater height than it is being lifted, you can`t accept it as a practical possibility.
ReplyDeleteIt is not that I am confident in what I have found. it is exceptional, solid and true. But, the deeper you get into the matter, his methods and papers you can see that the question of one additional joint appears at the end of the lever-system, this will double or trippel the "controlling" force. Think of a scissor jack, but you don`t know if it has 2 or 3 joints. So we have to experiment with the end of the mechanisms.. One or two joints? Then, the length/placement/adjustment of the "interconnecting principle" is also unspecified, still it is repeatedly described what it does and what it is. So I am 100% sure of the basics that appears, and why. It uses a method, and a proven system but how to be sure that there isn`t one more level, or one more drawing/page that show one more addition to the system. I have worked on it for several years, and it is hard to say that TODAY I am all finished. That is why I keep working still. I want to be sure that I have investigated down to the last bit.
When cracking the enigma code and wanting to know if you are down to the last bit, just look for the phrase "Heil Hitler".
DeleteOystein, if you saw the design I am currently working on, then you'd quickly realize that it is not necessary for any of the weights in Bessler's wheels to have to drop a greater distance that they are later raised. The dropping and rising weights can travel through the same distance and yet the wheel can still output mechanical energy to its environment (see my two posts below). Unlike your approach, the method I believe Bessler used was critically dependent upon the use of springs.
DeleteSorry that I don`t share your belief. I trust in my investigation into the matter. I found that springs only fool you to believe that you can raise the weights cheaper, while collecting energy in the springs. Though if you add the weight + spring energy it turns out you are even. I believe Besslers principle had a root in a overlooked but provable mechanical principle, where both falling, raising and "resting" weights are constantly affecting each other. Not a tiny variable in some refined adjustment. Besler said that he used principles that can be scientifically proven as PM principles, in the 1700s. To me it tells me that the principle was not of the kind that don`t work if you use wrong materials or adjust a spring just a tiny amount..It should use principles that can be proven by analyzing it mathematically and "visually", by simple drawings on paper. I don`t say springs could not be used, but not in that way, not as THE reason. This is just my opinion.
DeleteI do respect your opinion, Oystein, though I do not, of course, share it. I look forward to seeing, eventually, what you have come up with. If my soon to be tested model # 1241 is successful, then it will not be long afterward that I will be publishing the design that my research has led me to.
DeleteThanks for the understanding 0ystein. Sorry if I caused you any aggravation. It sounds like you are on the "right track" (sorry Ken B), I just wish you would hurry it up a bit. We the wait is killing me.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to throw us some bones from time to time, please do so. It would be good to hear from you more frequently.
1. I suggest to start from Centaurea cyanus.
Delete@ John Collins
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that this blogg has been a little more lively/friendly/ interesting of late.
I agree with you that we will know when we have Bessler’s secret. Given the degree of difficulty, are there really going to be two or more ways of doing this?
I also now agree with you about the significance of the number 5 in Bessler’s clues. I have been studying the clues in Maschinen Tractate, the textual and visual clues there don’t emphasize the number 5. However, I understand from what you and others have said that this is this is important. Now, finally I get it!
It seems that several of us now agree there is a 5 of something in Bessler’s Wheel’s construction. I believe this is means there are just five levers in the self-overbalancing structure (several of them, but just five of them in shape and design)
Working independently and with different clues we have all arrived at the same conclusion. This must be significant?
I think we can safely say there is a 5 of something is Bessler’s clues.
The bone to Anonymous
Delete2. There is not drawed all in MT replications (no any hard feelings to any replication makers here. May admit, there is too hard to redraw all information and give forward all meanings). Must look original MT. Other ways, all original books are facinating and unique.
In the design I am pursuing, eight weights at the ends of the levers gently land on their assigned wooden stops which are fixed to the inside of the drum's rim. The biggest obstacle many have to this approach is that they can not conceive of how it would be possible for a weight inside of one of Bessler's wheels to complete a closed orbit about the axle and, in the process, lose some gravitational potential energy (and the mass associated with it) which would then increase the kinetic energy of the entire wheel and, through the axle, could be transferred to a piece of machinery attached to the axle to power it. I must admit that this detail, at first glance, seems like a fatal objection to Bessler's wheels being powered by shifting levers with weights attached to their ends. It certainly seems to have been the cause of failure of all other inventors' imbalanced pm wheels that used weights on levers. So, how could a weight moving in a closed path through a gravity field continuously lose some of its energy with each completed path? The answer, I believe, is that the weights on the ascending side of Bessler's wheels, because they swing in toward the axle and stretch a spring in the process, temporarily store part of the gravitational potential they regain there in the stretched spring. That stored spring energy is then used later to help lift the weighted levers past the drum's 9:00 position and all the way to the descending side of the wheel back toward their rim stops. This temporary storage of gravitational potential energy in springs and its latter use allows the CoM of the wheel's weights and levers to remain off set from the axle and on the wheel's descending side even though the drum is rotating and trying to cause the CoM to rotate down to a position below the wheel's axle at the so-called "punctum quietus" or equilibrium position.. The offset CoM will create a torque that will then cause the wheel to accelerate and, as it does this, there will be an increase in the centrifugal forces acting on the weights and levers. These forces apparently interfere with the above described process and result in the CoM dropping down and swinging toward a position nearly directly below the axle so that is only able to produce enough torque to perfectly counter the various small drag forces of air and bearings acting on the wheel. At this point, the wheel will coast at a constant speed. If, however, an external piece of machinery is attached to the wheel's axle, the opposite process takes place. As soon as the drag of the extra load applied to the wheel is felt, the wheel will decelerate. This then causes the CoM of its weights and levers to swing back toward their original starting location which they had when the wheel was stationary. As this happens, the torque acting on the wheel's axle increases and, eventually, equals the opposing torque applied to the axle by the external piece of machinery.
ReplyDeleteWell, in rereading the above I realized that it is not a satisfactory explanation of how the energy and mass were drained from the weights in one of Bessler's wheels. There must be something happening when that external drag is applied to the axle and that results in the CoM of the wheel's weights suddenly rising on the wheel's descending side. There might be some sort of microscopic process involved in which the CoM rises there just a bit higher than it should and as it then drops to drive the loaded axle, it loses a tiny bit more gravitational potential energy than it recovers on the wheel's ascending side. This then will constantly drain the gravitational potential energy and its associated mass from the weight with each of its travels around the wheel's axle (I call this the "mass diminution hypothesis"). Well, I wish I had a better explanation, but I guess at this time I can only provide Bessler's explanation which was, basically, "It works because it works"!
I've been doing some more thinking about just how the weights in Bessler's wheels managed to transfer their descending side lost gravitational potential energy to the moving parts of machinery connected to a wheel's axle and have reached this tentative conclusion: It is done mainly through the suspension springs that are attached to the levers that carry the weights. When an external load is attached to a wheel's axle, it momentarily causes the axle and the drum connected to it to slow down a little. But, the weights and the levers whose ends they are attached to, due to their inertia, continue to try to move at the former velocities they had and that discrepancy then allows the suspension springs between the levers and the drum to pull all of the weights a little closer to their rim stops. This action then results in the CoM of all of the weights and levers rising a little higher on the drum's descending side which, momentarily, increases the torque on the axle. That increased torque then accelerates the moving parts of any external machinery attached to the axle. As the springs contract during this rising of the CoM, they lose a little of the energy and its associated mass that they gained while being stretched on the ascending side of the wheel. That energy and its associated mass is then transferred to the moving parts of the attached machinery. As one of Bessler's wheels powered an external device, this process was continuous during wheel rotation and the weights and levers inside of the drum would continuously lose their mass while the parts in the attached machinery would gain mass unless it was drained away through heating of the air around the machinery. This explanation seems to make more sense to me and it has a very important consequence if it is valid. That is that Bessler's wheels could not work without the use of springs! Others trying to make lever action imbalanced wheels always found nothing but failure. But, how many of them used springs in their wheels like Bessler did?!
ReplyDeleteUpdate. I tested my model # 1239 earlier this morning and...another failure. However, I'm not too bothered by this result as I was again expecting it. In examining the motion of the model's CoM I noticed that, unlike the case with my previously tested model # 1243, the CoM almost immediately flew over to the wheel's ascending side and spent a lot of time there during the 45 deg test segment of drum rotation. This demonstrates that the action of the CoM is very dependent upon where, on the 9:00 lever, I attach that final lifting rope. Tomorrow I shall test model # 1242 which places the final lifter rope a little closer to what I still believe is "the" exact spot that Bessler placed it. That model's CoM stability test should also fail, but be a little better than that of model # 1243. The cat must play a little longer before his final meeting with that still hidden pm mouse...
Quick update on my replication of the (apprently) electrostatic motor Ken posted on the last thread:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGPnxLSgnUI
Got back to it on Sunday; cut a good rotor from polystyrene, perfectly balanced, but was in a quandary over whether to paint one face of it black immediately, or only after testing without painting. I figured doing it the latter way meant removing then re-applying the foil strips, and besides, if it didn't work when painted it was no more likely to without the paint.
It know it seems like a piddling detail but you have to be a bit anal about replications, especially when there's an anomolous effect..
So i tested a little pot of fountain pen ink on a piece of scrap polystyrene. It didn't apply well - soaking into the foam, and only leaving a very thin, mostly transparent outer coating.. as you might expect from pen ink on plastic.
Looking at the disc in the video, the black side has a smooth satin finish. I couldn't think of what kind of paint that would be, so thought i'd try a can of spray paint. Big mistake - instead of testing a small sample first i just sprayed directly onto the rotor... It promptly melted.
Small lesson learned, but makes the black coating on his original rotor all the more perplexing, limiting as it does the range of possible coatings, and so at the same time begging the question for its presence..
One reason i considered it may be important to the replication is its resemblence to a Crooke's radiometer - which exploits black body radiation effects to shape a thermal potential energy gradient. But it would be equally useful for concealing any trickery embedded in the rotor! Could it be a paper or cardbaord cover, rather than paint? And if it IS paint, then what kind would leave such a smooth satin finish when applied to spongy plastic like polystyrene?
Until i can find a suitable coating i'll just have to test without one. Perhaps it's wholly irrelevant. But if i can't measure any effect without it, then its significance may be more important...
Prepping a new rotor this evening...
If only i'd Googled first.. Just found this most helpful video:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBABqYL8GLg
But looking around at other advice sites, it seems acrylic paint could be just the ticket..
In the meantime i think i'll resort back to my original plan to test it prior to painting, since it can't be unpainted afterwards and helps in the process of elimination to be able to use the same rotor for all tests. So i'll run a battery of tests unpainted, then paint and re-test...
I'm glad to read you're still at work on duplicating that electrostatic pm motor, Vibe. I'm about 99% sure that the black coating on one side of the video's disc is just black paper because this is what was on the surface of the samples of that insulating material they use when siding a house which I've actually seen and handled. It is not critical to the operation of the device. In the working electrostatic motor I made from a styrofoam coffee cup, there was no paint on the cup. Yes, putting a petroleum distillate solvent on styrofoam is a big mistake. This expanded plastic polymer will readily dissolve in liquids like acetone, bezene, xylene, etc.
DeleteUpdate. I just finished the testing of my model # 1242 and...you guessed it... yet another failure. In fact the CoM stability test almost looked as bad as the one for # 1243 which surprised me a bit since this model has that final lifter rope's attachment point on the 9:00 lever a little closer to the one used on model # 1241 which I am very convinced, based on several of the DT portrait clues, must be "the" one Bessler used. Well, I'm still not worried...yet. The next model I'll test will be # 1240 which also has an attachment point close to the ideal one. That should also, like the present one tested, fail. However, if the final model # 1241 I've made is tested and fails, then I will really be at the end of what I can do with my Bessler research. Let's hope that does not happen. That cat has had so many disappointments in his efforts to meet up with that plump and tasty pm mouse. This time he needs to finally have his well deserved snack!
ReplyDelete