Thursday, 14 January 2016

2016 Update

Still working on my wheel in the garage, despite the imminent move from this house to another one.

Recent discussion on BW forum mentioned, once again, that  nothing on paper will convince anyone of any claims to have found the solution to Johann Bessler's wheel.  This has been my stance for many years and now I find myself having to (possibly) eat my words!  I have some how convinced myself that I know how the wheel worked blah blah blah!  

So making the wheel would obviously be the next step, but all sorts of excuses are available - the house-move is restricting my time and access to the wheel; my workshop tools are out-dated, suffering like me from old age; my drill has seized up and I should buy a new one but I borrowed my father-in-laws old one which has been lying in a pool of water for the last seven years and I am nervous about plugging it into the electricity, so it continues dry out on a radiator!  Its too cold to work out side at the moment . . . . .and so on and so on.  

All of these excuses are real (Really! Honestly!) so I am considering the other ways of getting my design verified.  I have an idea which way to go, so please don't feel the need to advise, I have plans but in the mean time I must try to continue the build and hope for warmer weather, and do not worry I shall not be testing the water-logged drill, I shall dump it at the earliest opportunity and buy myself a shiny new one.

**********************************************

I wrote this a couple of weeks ago and since then I have made my decision about my next step.  I left the above as it is because I think we all go through these procrastinatory steps and I thought it worthwile to describe it for the benefit of those lucky people equipped with superb workshops and all the right equipment and no lazy habits which lead to dilatory outcomes.

In the end I have solemly promised that, come what may, my theory will be published this year, wheel or no wheel.  And because a paper hypothesis would be ignored I am taking steps to marshall some impressive supporting evidence for my hypothesis which hopefully will not be ignored.  But in the end a wheel must appear.. . this year.

JC


23 comments:

  1. That sounds like a good plan, John. We're all hoping for the best for you, come what may.
    The problem I have with my stuff is keeping it organized. When I have a project, I can't find things because I didn't put them back where they belonged during my last project. I have a big outbuilding with every tool imaginable. So when I look for something, it's like playing Where's Waldo. And every time, I say one of these days I'm going to organize this. I did once about 5 years ago, but it didn't last. But, it's better than it would have been if I hadn't. Old habits are hard to break. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John,
    I Googled this a while ago, and the info is from the company.
    The WD in WD40, stands for water displacement, the 40 is for the 40 attempts to get the formula right.
    So maybe spraying some under any covers on the drill would be a good idea, especially the switch, not too much, as oil is an insulator.
    If you're still unsure, take the drill to an electrician and ask him to do a PAT test, ( portable appliance test )
    or at the very least a Megga insulation test.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John, if you come visit me in Cape town you are welcome to use my drill press.
    Anything to get this baby finished!

    ReplyDelete
  4. John, your will finally see, this is easy as 1, 2, 3, 4,(5) and 8 (9)!

    Eastlander

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks guys for the kind comments. Stevo, my son-in-law duct-taped the trigger 'on', plugged the drill cable into a wall socket, and switched it on with the end of a wooden broom! Hey presto! The drill works just fine, I'm amazed because the chuck is somewhat corroded. But obviously the internal stuff dried out and the drill works. But now I have got the idea of buying a new drill, I'm probably going to bin the old one anyway, as I really would like to have the new one!

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, instead of wasting more precious time (at our age we are on borrowed time, essentially and it IS RUNNING OUT!) with sweating this G-D old drill, and simply PURCHASE A NEW ONE!

      Or, might this be as just another stupid idea as coming from this blog's moron/whipping-boy ??? [The case of Vibrator being here particularly singled-out for due, just-noting by yours truly. (I NEVER forget friend or foe!)]

      In all sincerity it is, that I make note of these things.

      -J.

      Delete
  5. TUT, TUT, TUT!
    please at least touch the chuck with a neon screwdriver while running, just to make sure the metal parts are not live.
    I had a thought later on that, for what an electrical test would cost, you'll probably be more than half way towards the cost of a new drill.
    B&Q or somewhere must do a reasonable quality one for about 40 quid, that's what I always used to do, buy reasonable tools, and then if they were stolen, lost, or mutilated by somebody who "just wants to borrow it for a minute," they're not to costly to replace.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No need to knock yourself out making apologies, John. Although we all like to think we're supermen who can overcome any obstacle in our "quest" to achieve pm, the reality is that we are only fallible, fragile humans who must often muster all of our mental and physical strengths to get even the smallest tasks completed somewhat on schedule. Adding to the headwind we must fight against is the knowledge that all of the work we do has no immediate financial incentive to it, but may only, with the greatest of luck, lead to some compensation someday. The seriously committed pm chaser does what he does because he wants to, finally, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a machine is possible and that he's the one who figured out how to do it. Those pursuing replications of Bessler's wheels have to do so knowing they are only trying to resurrect some other inventor's device and not their own. They are also pursuing a design that produces not too impressive amounts of power which means it will be of next to zero benefit to society unless it can be modified to greatly increase its power output. Their only real compensation is that they can claim to be the first person to successfully reverse engineer his design in the last three centuries. Most likely, there will be no Nobel Prize from his efforts and, for years after the rediscovery is announced, the only feedback he will get will be harassment and ridicule from various self-appointed debunkers and skeptics who will question his intelligence and, most likely, sanity. But, the serious pm chaser must shake off all of this negativity and just keep plodding along and "keeping the faith" that Bessler's wheels were real and that they can again soon be fully understood and duplicated.

    As far as your particular solution to Bessler's wheels is concerned, John, my offer made last year still stands. If you publish the design openly, I will do my best to make an accurate wm2d model of it and extensively test it to see if it shows any hint of working. If you do not publish it openly and wish me to still evaluate it for you, you can then email me a sketch and I will work with that. And, of course, I will not disclose the design to anyone without your prior permission. I will also, at your request, not disclose the results of any modeling and testing I do. Well, I'm sure you have probably gotten similar offers from others, so just add mine to your collection. I, like most others here, am eagerly looking forward to what you have and the clues that led you to that particular design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As always and so-dependably, K.B., wise-words-all.

      However . . . I beg to differ, if I might, on one single point?

      It is here where you state thus "Most likely, there will be no Nobel Prize from his efforts . . ." that I do.

      I suggest that so as to ameliorate any possibility of this becoming so as you have qualifiedly suggested - that the discoverer would not be rewarded a quite just Nobel prize for this excellent, successful efforts - this unique and grand individual would have to partner in a peer review paper with some famous physicist of near-unquestionable veracity, who's opinion as to the new fact that gravity IS, after all, a source of usable energy is one nearly unassailable.

      Someone such as say a professor emeritus of physics, former head of the Physics Department of M.I.T. or C.I.T. or, a former president of the Royal Society or previous holder of the Newton's chair of physics at Cambridge(?), etc.

      I am positively sure that any such distinguished individual WOULD desire passionately to participate in introducing to the world that which was uniformly, unequivocally DENIED as a possibility by his "lesser" peers.

      Upset?

      Well, YES!, to put it very leastwise.

      In my mind there is no question that there would be a Nobel sure, as reward for their efforts.

      (Or, to put the matter crudely but as more colorfully, SUCH a discovery WOULD be a BIG F'ING DEAL! Any that would dare deny it, being just a bunch of old maids, in this very un-grand one's opinion.)

      As to all the rest of what you put, K.B., we two breathe AS ONE . . .

      - James +

      Delete
    2. I suspect that when we finally duplicate Bessler's wheels and the evidence that they were real becomes overwhelming, the scientific community will just say "Hmmm...Interesting. Looks like yet another proof of how matter and energy are the same thing as predicted by E = mc^2. But, although the design that allows the device to output this energy-mass to the environment is rather novel, it's really not a fundamental scientific discovery after all. It's just a sort of mechanical or technological breakthrough and we don't really award Nobel Prizes for those. Sorry. Perhaps we could name a building or two over in Germany after Herr Bessler or something. Anyway, thanks for letting us all see this nice little toy of his that you managed to reverse engineer. It took you how long? Humph, a "real" scientist like one of us could probably could have done it in a fraction of that time if he'd bothered to take a second look at the bizarre subject. Oh, well, too bad, but, after all it's power output is so low that it's virtually worthless any way. A Nobel Prize for that?! Lol! You must be kidding!"

      Oh, yes, I can just imagine what will be going through the minds of the scientific elite when Bessler's wheels turn again.

      Delete
    3. Only a true prick could have written what you did above as you did, to what I carefully and respectfully posted. It deserved better.

      Is it just that TODAY you lapsed into that or are you always, after all, just pretending to be nice and reasonable?

      Now I am recalling why we parted company years ago.

      Again, you have crossed the line.

      Delete
    4. Not sure what you're referring to, James. I was just predicting how the real scientific community will react when Bessler's wheels turn again. They've literally spent centuries dumping on the subject and those that pursue it. Don't expect them to immediately hail any rediscovery of Bessler's secret mechanics as some laudable achievement. First, they'll declare the rediscovery a hoax. Then they'll say there's some simple reason for how such a wheel works that the ignorant inventor does not recognize because of his lack of formal training in real science. Finally, they'll grudgingly admit that such devices are possible, but aren't really that big a deal compared to the serious discoveries being made in quantum, relativity, and string theory. If Bessler's wheels can't be improved to deliver significant power, they'll then say, see, just a waste of time like we've been saying all along. I tend to be somewhat pessimistic when it comes to my fellow human beings' reactions to things. Naturally, I hope I'm wrong about all of this, but, right now, I don't think I am.

      Delete
  7. "I have an idea which way to go, so please don't feel the need to advise..."

    Unfortunately John, I do feel the need to say this much:— The one major advantage that physical modellers have is that, whether they realise the significance of it or not, their models are built on the Earth's surface, and are rotating along with it. The more modelling I do, the more I believe this is critically important.

    None of my simple "fixed-frame" computer models have ever worked, but others do, when placed on an object constrained to move as the Earth's surface does. Unfortunately none are yet at a stage where I would wish to discuss them in detail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. arktos, my first words of this blog were:-

      "Recent discussion on BW forum mentioned, once again, that nothing on paper will convince anyone of any claims to have found the solution to Johann Bessler's wheel. This has been my stance for many years..."

      Only desperation makes me seek an alternative method of proof or if you prefer verification by another. My stance has not altered - I agree with you.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, I do agree that "nothing of paper" will convince anyone that one has found Bessler's secret imbalanced pm wheel design. We've all seen hundreds, maybe thousands of designs on paper come and go over the decades. They are only evidence of much human pondering of possible ways to achieve pm. However, with a working and reliable simulation ("reliable" meaning glitch free), things are a bit different. One at least has a design that with a high degree of probability should work in reality. Of course, that is still no absolute guarantee that it will, but it's certainly enough to justify the time, effort, and expense to construct an accurate physical prototype based on the computer sim to see if the sim is valid. In other words, the simulation at least gives a skilled builder a plausible direction to head in as he tries to solve the Bessler wheel mystery. As a current "sims only" researcher I see myself as a sort of middleman between the available data (again thanks to John for making it available in English) and the person who finally can construct and then unveil a working Bessler wheel. I am comfortable with my current status.

      Delete
  8. While I can't rule out the possibility that a gravity-only wheel might work on some principle that has never occurred to me, I can say that my current ideas rely entirely on the different behaviour of:—

    1) a mass influenced by gravity, but otherwise completely disconnected from Earth, over some part of its operating cycle, and

    2) the mass still influenced by gravity, and now connected to some object, e.g. a wheel, which has its axle connected to the Earth's surface (and is therefore being constantly forced away from a straight-line path) over some other part of the cycle.

    Physical models incorporate 2) easily and automatically. My computer models also have to do this, or they wouldn't work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like you're trying to come up with a design that would somehow use the rotation of the Earth to power it. There is a tiny difference between the centrifugal forces applied by the Earth's rotation to the top and bottom of a wheel due to their different distances from the center of the our rotating planet, but it's nowhere near as strong as would be needed to, say, lift a opposed pair of four pound weights up horizontally as they approached the 6 and 12 o'clock positions of a wheel.

      There is a place in the US called the "Oregon Vortex" where there seems to be a genuine gravitational anomaly. This anomaly causes objects, like people, entering it to suddenly shrink! Some claim it is just an optical illusion, but others say measurements show it's real! I don't know if any one has actually weighed objects in the anomaly to see if their weights increased which would indicate that the force of Earth's gravity was a little stronger there. If such an increase occurs, then it would be a simple matter to use it to make a wheel rotate perpetually. All one would have to do is place one half of the wheel in the anomaly and the weights on that side would be a bit heavier those outside the anomaly and would make the wheel turn. Such an anomaly could, in theory, explain how Bessler's wheels might have worked. Perhaps he constructed a special sensitive gravity detector that was able to locate gravitational "hot spots" and always constructed his one direction wheels so that one half of them was located in the anomaly. This hypothesis, however, can not explain how one of his two directional wheels would have worked though. Below is a short video showing what happens when two people exchange positions in a gravitational anomaly. Does this look like an optical illusion or the real thing? Note this unusual site even came to the attention of Einstein who said that, if it's real and there is no change in weight occurring, then any object entering the anomaly would have to be experiencing a change in density as it did so and shrunk in volume. I think he was rather fascinated by it.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=743oy55RqX4

      Delete
    2. Interesting, but I don't need local anomalies, assuming they're real.

      Only when connected in some way to Earth, a mass can experience Earth's centrifugal force, which works out at +0.0339157 Newtons/kg at the equator. Yes, much smaller than gravity at about -9.81 N/kg, but not always negligible either. A 10kg mass moving vertically through 1m in the Earth's centrifugal force field would gain 0.34 N-m = 0.34 Joules. If that gain could be achieved in say 0.1 second, that would give 3.4 watts power output. Not much, but still something.

      Delete
  9. I came across this interesting little video. First, we see an actual physicist telling us that pm is impossible. Next, we see a magician construct a "perpetual motion machine" in a matter or seconds using a matchbox, toothpick, piece of paper, and a glass. Well, it's not exactly pm, but it's interesting how he sets it in motion.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghj8ZzlaEXU

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one here has yet figured out how the magician made his little "perpetual motion machine" run? Hint: it's a method some have suggested Bessler may have used, but which, although most likely tested for, was never detected.

      Delete
  10. I think I'll just stand aside from this crew. Have fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken, reading your suspicion that the scientific comunity will react with a marked lack of enthusiams to the duplication of Bessler's wheel, highlights for me your seemingly very negatve attitude to Bessler's wheel. You have consistently promoted the idea that it will not have enough power to be of any practical use. I totally disagree with you and I also disagree that the scientific community will be unimpressed with Bessler's wheel. In fact I will go so far as to suggest that they will seize upon the announcement with unalloyed delight and joy!

      JC

      Delete
    2. Well, we're going to have to "agree to disagree" about that, John. Every science forum I've ever visited inevitably has a topic that involves pm and becomes an opportunity for the "serious" members to dump on any newcomers who suggest pm might be possible. Of course, they are right if someone suggests that one can create energy out of nothing. However, on none of these sites do I ever read someone, like me, suggesting that such a machine could be possible, but only if it used the energy-mass of its own components to provide the power it outputted. Such a machine might run for a very long time, but not actually forever since its parts only contain a finite amount of energy-mass. Thus, it would not be "perpetual" in the absolute sense of the term. I think that mode of operation would be acceptable to the scientific orthodoxy and it will, most certainly, be the only one they will embrace once Bessler's wheels turn again.

      But, once that happens there will still be the issue of the power output of his wheels. As they are now, that power output is minuscule compared to the conventional sources of power we have nowadays. In fact, it was the simultaneous development of the far more powerful, but coal hungry steam engine that probably tripled the difficulty Bessler had in finding a buyer for his pollution free wheel design. Considering how quickly he modified his one-directional wheels into wheels that were two-directional in order to counter the skepticism of those that suggested they were powered, like clocks, by spring wound movements, I'm sure he would also have tried to greatly boost their torques if he could. However, all he could offer to do that was to suggest making the wheels bigger and bigger with heavier and heavier weights and then placing several of them on an axle. Yes, that trick will work if one is not bothered by having a house sized array of wheels to provide the same power that a simple water or wind mill or steam engine could provide. Note that he fell and died from internal injuries days later while working on a wind mill, not a giant version of one of his imbalanced pm wheels.

      So, the scientific world will, I believe, eventually grudgingly accept that Bessler was not a fraud and, indeed, was a sort of genius in his own right. However, to truly earn their and the world's respect, his wheels will have to lead to a design that can, in a somewhat compact design, output thousands to tens of thousands of watts. Right now I don't see that happening although I certain hope it will happen. I have to keep my focus on the most fundamental problem that needs to be solved before anything else takes place: how did his one direction wheels work. Unless that puzzle can be solved, then everything else concerning him is, basically, just an interesting bit of history. Interesting bits of history, sadly, tend to get lost in the mists of time.

      Delete

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...