One of my hypothesis evaluations came back with a high approval rating but, as he put it, without a working model it's still so much hot air. He was more convinced by the concept than the actual configuration, citing areas of conflict which he believed required further work, but which he thought could be overcome successfully. That opinion was backed up by my second evaluator. He has proved really useful, simulating the design on his computer and pointing out where deficiencies lie. Even though I thought I'd covered everything there were still further clues to be deciphered but I've found them and interpreted them and revised the document and I think progress is being made.
These responses to my hypothesis make me glad that I got some feedback before publishing it. I know that people will say 'publish it and let everyone do their own work on it', but the closer it is to the answer the less likely people are to reject it with out further consideration.
These responses to my hypothesis make me glad that I got some feedback before publishing it. I know that people will say 'publish it and let everyone do their own work on it', but the closer it is to the answer the less likely people are to reject it with out further consideration.
With the house move taking up so much time, any chance of getting back to work on my wheel is becoming vanishingly small. The hypothesis document relates most of the design to specific clues I have deciphered and which seem to be theoretically verifiable, but without the working model I am stumped hence the need for publication of my efforts and to let others try to build it.
The idea of publishing my findings is still uppermost in my mind but a book detailing everything is a strong possibility too, even if my current efforts don't lead to a working model, somewhere. The book would obviously include the design as well, in order to relate the clues to specific parts of the design. It's almost like duplicating the hypothesis document but in a lengthier form and would need to include all the textual clues as well. But if I include those pieces of text which relate to clues I have deciphered, how do I engage anyone not familiar with the legend of Bessler's wheel, if they are simply extracted from the original book, out of context? I don't know the answer so I will just publish what I have so far, once I have the final word from my other evaluator.
A simple question on BW forum reminded me of the importance of getting what any of us know, out into the wide world. The queston is , " If Someone Discovered How To Do It, Would You Be Angry?" This question or similar ones have arisen before and my answer is the same now as it was on the previous occasions - no. Why would I be angry? I'd be pleased because my efforts to inform the world of all things Bessler would see fruit and blossom.
That someone else should succeed before me - or any of us - is obviously a daily possibility and therefore one I have considered many times over the years and my considered response has always been, good let's get these things out to the world at large so they can start doing some good. And that also applies to hesitating to publish what I know. Why have I delayed for so long? Obviously my priimary reason was to try to finish my own version of Bessler's wheel, but time is racing by - it does at my age as others will verify. So as soon as I can I will ...................... publish!!
Things
move slowly here. Still in my old house; still haven't found a new
one, although it is early in the year for people to put their houses up
for sale. So I must just wait. We should be out of here in the next
two or three weeks and living with one of my daughters and her husband and our youngest grandaughter plus Coco, the golden lab. Then who knows? Maybe we'll
rent for a month or two in sunnier climes.
Next
Saturday I have to go into hospital for a hernia operation, my second
one. My first was at age seven and this second one will be at age 71!
No lifting for a couple of weeks afterwards so I don't know who is going
to do all the work moving house!
JC
Sounds like an initial simulation was a failure. Not a good sign, but don't let it get you down too much. I've had close to 1500 failed simulations so far (the unofficial number is even higher!) and every time I have one I just say "Well, now I'm another step closer to success." If either you, I, or anybody else has something that works, it will eventually be published. Unlike you, however, I will only publish my Bessler research if I can present a design which I am 100% sure is "it". Clues, histories, and theories are all fine to read about, but the heart of the Bessler story is the solution to how he did it; in other words what was the imbalanced pm wheel mechanics that made it all possible. That is what everyone, in and out of the field of free energy research, really wants to know. The demand for that information is enormous. He who can supply the answer will attain much justly deserved praise and, perhaps, some small measure of fame. His name will echo down the corridor of eternity and his tiny statue will stand proudly in its own little niche in the pantheon of those who solved great historical and scientific mysteries. But, what one presents must be the real deal: something a craftsman can take into his shop and turn into a working Bessler wheel again. I continue to struggle toward providing that.
ReplyDeleteSurgery? Well, I hope it goes well for you. Amazing how much stress you suddenly have dumped on you. Pressure to publish your findings with advancing age, a house move, and now surgery! When things get hectic like that, I've found that one has to just take it one day at a time or even one hour at a time. Concentrate on getting the major problems under control and out of the way first before moving on to the ever present minutia which can distract one and keep him running in circles without making progress on what really needs to be done. I'm sure we'll all be hoping and praying for your full recovery and continuing good health.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't so clear about Bessler's project in my previous question (26 February 2016 at 16:59, in your previous post). What I think is that Bessler used more then five wheights, an even number of weights.
ReplyDelete"Verification still pending". You chose your examiners poorly.
ReplyDeleteUnless you have a working model, forget it. If anyone really wants to make something that turns, then the first thing to do is completely forget about besslers clues, they will lead you nowhere. Use your own initiative and think outside the box, then when you have a working model look back at besslers clues and sure enough they will match. If John and Ken were both fortunate on turning their wheels and then compared them to besslers clues, they both would fit.
DeleteKens got he's Springs and John got he's 5 (five) mechanism's
Anything is easy once you know the answer
Not really anon. I was pleased with the first verifier, who thought I had hit on the secret but got part of the configuration wrong. More or less the same comment from verifier 2, but in this case we are trying to correct the configuration and we are both in agreement about how to do it.
DeleteJC
Uneqk wrote: "If John and Ken were both fortunate on turning their wheels and then compared them to besslers clues, they both would fit."
DeleteHmmm...I'm not too sure about that. We each believe that he mostly has the actual and properly interpreted clues and that the other pm chaser is delusional. The ultimate test of who is correct will come only after one of us manages to advance a mechanism that, when "reduced to practice", results in a wheel that actually works in the same way that Bessler's wheels worked. I remain confident that this year of our Lord, 2016, will be "the" year that "the" mechanism is finally found. I can feel it in every particle of my being.
Update: Well, I tested my model #1461 earlier today and...more failure. However, in reviewing this current failure, I began to think that maybe I have been using the wrong lever angle on my 7:30 lever because of a misinterpretation of the DT portrait clue that gives information about the starting angle of this particular lever. Well, I've reviewed that clue and have another, hopefully more accurate interpretation that has given me a new angle setting to try. I'm now using that new angle in my model #1462 and hoping for the best. As with all things, time will tell whether I'm moving down yet another dead end. Maybe this time things will be different. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Seem that there is limitation in symbols amount in one comment , so I write in more then one part ...
DeleteKen wrote:" ...that this year of our Lord, 2016, will be "the" year that "the" mechanism is finally found...!
I say: "Mmm..,I think this was allready happened in 2015!" :)
Ken wrote also: "I can feel it in every particle of my being." ... I´m also sure in that. Very good feeling!!
Ken wrote: "We each believe that he mostly has the actual and properly interpreted clues and that the other pm chaser is delusional."
Ken, why you think that other chasers are delusional? Why You thinking so? At the moment I see John have more "ground and useful points" than you, based on both of your writings.
OK. I do not play with you guys blind man`s buff here anymore.
Today I finally admit here, that I have working simulation (s) setup (s) almost seven-eight months now, and I am going to stage 2, trying to make real world prototype.
At the moment I have solution to unidirectional wheel only. (I think, as there is no real world evidence ...jet )
Why I have waiting for so long, you may ask!? Well, there is several reasons for that.
1. I appriciate John tremendieous work and his personality in Bessler research and I decided to let him finalize his "life" work firstly. He have deserve it. Without John publications and findings about Bessler, I have never ever to start to make my own research in this field. I have tryed to envolve more ground like projects, like sun and wind....
2. I have tryed to be sure what I got now. Also I have tryed to find mistakes in program and/or in system setup. Because I have lived trough several "yes, thats it" phases, but finally found some mistakes in simulation setup. After I got some "hint" from ... (John, sorry not from You) (but , this is another strange little story ....)
From now I have made more then 500 different simulation tests now, beginning from my Bessler research. Last, about 100 tests with (almost) "visibly" the same and (almost) "correct" structure setup.
Idea was: to find good rotational speed wheel ... as I may call it wheel.
Conclusion from all thsose last tests was, that lot of those tests do not work at all, only small amount them do, even they "look and "feel" almost the same". I trying to put there things together with different connection points, lever lenghts, masses, springs .... and .... Till finally I get understaning how and why only one setup works "correctly". All knowledge was coming later, trough those tests.
Some of those test shows ...
My question to John at the moment is, do you know:
How quicly Bessler answers to question: "Can He build multidirectional wheel?"
(Answer was made: Right away, after some days ...months!?)
As I understand from now, answer was "yes", but how quicly it was given out from Bessler?!
(Eastlander)
Continues ...
My final work and findings are not based on Bessler clues, but mainly on Renato Ribeiro patents and trying to make his founded things differently. There is some similarity in Renatos findings and Bessler publications.
DeleteBut as I mentioned here in comments before: only things that I have finally found in last "working wheels", with very good speed, containing answers to Bessler clues and those clues seems to be finally unbelievably real. Not taken/thinked out ones.
Even if the real word test will not be sucessful, the setup itself is amazingly simple. And when watch it running in simulation, its is on its own way very ... hypnotising. Also, all who have familiar with Bessler clues and drawings, will see not only familiar things from Bessler publications, but also right ...... ..... and "direct" answers to Bessler metaphoric descriptions.
Afterwar seeing my finding, every one can write his own "clues decoding" book about this. Specially John...
At the moment I can say:
Yes, the wheel is self starting
Yes, the wheel have 8 weights on it. Works better then use 6 or less weights. If use more weights, the wheel must be then twice thicker.
Please see my earlier comments and clues that I have posted. Some of them, specially last ones, may sound and look: "hey this guy is crazy here". Sorry, english is not my first choice to write, also not second one. So there may be some wrongly written words. Sry.
Unidirectional wheel main clues are visible in 2 (may say also in 3) drawings only,... Where , I do not reveal at the moment. There must use other keys, that John have previously written also. Facinating coding from Bessler. All that I can say to Ken: portraits are not those main drawing clues. (maybe there are clues for multi directional one, I do not know jet)
But, I may admit that there must be very good imagination, to put them all to gether to working wheel just for that. Only by the imagination or even by the logic. I just want to say with that from my experience: You may have correct "it", but without testing (simulation or real word), there is several (tens) of places to make things wrong.
All the best
Eastlander
Sounds like you've got a working simulation, Eastlander. That's great news to read. However, you must make sure that there are no flaws in your simulation that make the wheel appear to falsely turn. All simulation programs have their glitches in them that can deliver false results. Anyway, assuming you actually have a "runner", the next step is to publish your design. I understand that you want to verify it's real with a physical model first. That's certainly a safe approach to take, but it can delay publication of the design during which time someone else might be working on the same design and will publish his design before you do. If that happens, then he will get the credit for the discovery and not you. Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you have found.
DeleteKen, so your next move was in my situation ...
DeleteEastlander
Update: Good, but somewhat perplexing news to report. I just finished constructing wm2d models #1462 and #1463 of what I believe was the 3 foot diameter, one directional prototype wheel Bessler first found success with at the "house of Richters" in Gera in early 1712. These models utilize the corrected 7:30 lever starting angle I mentioned above. When motor driven, the 8 levers in both models are shifting more smoothly than I think I've ever seen happen before. As the weights pass the 3 o'clock positions of their drums, they very gently alight on their wooden rim stops. No "hard" impacts or bouncing at all. Just smoothly continuous separation closures which, in a real wheel, would produce the "gentle", rhythmic impact sounds reported by the examiners of Bessler's wheels. But, here's the dilemma I find myself in. When I finished model #1462, I noticed that its gross mass, after having its physical dimensions scaled up by a factor of 4 in order to represent the Merseberg wheel, was just slightly over 500 pounds. This seems a bit too heavy for a 6 inch diameter oak axle, imo. So, I redid the model as #1463 and halved the masses of its lever's end weights and the levers themselves. I also had to halve the constants of the suspension springs on the levers. That then reduced the scaled up model's gross mass to about 360 pounds which seems much less of a strain on that 6 inch diameter axle. When I rechecked all of my DT portrait clues I found that the ones that pertain to weight and lever mass are ambiguous; that is, one can interpret them in either of two different ways and each way leads to a separate, but identically functioning wheel with the only difference being their gross masses and, of course, power outputs. Well, I'm just going to have to test both models. The next tests I do will be the "dead stop start" tests in which the motors are removed and the wheels just allowed to naturally accelerate at their own paces from a complete standstill. Hopefully, I won't be seeing more keels.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought just occurred to me. What if the lighter 360 pound wheel is the one Bessler constructed at Merseberg while the heavier 500+ pound version was what he built at Kassel to impress Count Karl with its doubled power output?! That would seem to explain why Bessler had to use an 8 inch diameter axle on the Kassel wheel as compared to the 6 inch one on the Merseberg wheel. Note that 8 in / 6 in is 1.333 and that 500 lb / 360 lb is 1.388 which is fairly close in value. Does proportionately increasing the diameter of a circular cross section axle proportionately increase its load bearing capacity?
Interesting possibility, indeed. Would be really nice if I could find both the Merseberg and Kassel wheel designs at the same time! Stay tuned for further developments!
It's good to see that one of us (Eastlander) is sufficiently convinced of a successful simulation to start a physical build. I'm in roughly the same position — my current models are simple enough to not even require simulation. Knowledge of Newtonian physics and a calculator are enough (but no details as yet!)
ReplyDeleteI'd still like to compact-up my models a bit more though, before finally starting to build a prototype.
Some of my prototype components would be conveniently made these days with a 3D printer. I've just bought one (a Wanhao Duplicator 5S) which is currently in transit.
John,
ReplyDeleteI hope your operation goes well, my dad had the same procedure, he's fine now.
I had a good day testing my little model, all the weights do what they should, I just have to try and find a spring of the right tension.
If I place the weights as they should be just after the 12 O'clock position, the beam nearly turns 360 deg. Once the spring is in place,it will hopefully flip the small over- balancing weight upwards, and make the beam rotate past the top again.
Sounds like you are on the verge of "closing the loop", vertically, that is. Well, good luck with it. If you find success, then you can legitimately claim you have OU, but only so long as the model is motionless to start with. Once you get continuous rotation, the next step is to try to improve the power output so that you can get some steady acceleration.
DeleteNo testing is required...when it strikes in your mind you know for sure its that Bessler's design, in fact.... The bitter fact is no one is near the truth...And, the irony is no one is either willing to listen to this or accept it...God bless us all...Suresh
ReplyDeleteGood to hear that some of us are getting close. I also have simulations that work - interestingly they don't work quite the same in different simulation programs, allthough all parameters have been chosen exactly the same. I have also made similar experiences as Eastlander: very small variations will produce very different results. I have now started building a physical model - so far not working, but this was due to errors in the construction (I hope). However, a person has contacted me who claims to have a working model and apperently has gotten a patent due to being able to prove that the construction works. I have not been able to verify this yet.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Mimi
Karl, Landgrave v. Hesse Kassel: "But, Herr Councilor Orffyreus, from whence dost this excess kraft originate for the tuerning? I am LOOKING, but do not SEE!
ReplyDeleteCouncilor Orffyeus: "Why sire, from just across the way - as in a child's play!
Karl,...: "Ach ja! JA!! Sacré Dieu!!!
To some very few, a necessary conversation as MOST easily imagined.
"Now 70 - Six foot tall, . . ."
ReplyDeleteNo longer since February 5th for the distinguished Aquarius.
'Now 71 - Six foot tall, . . .'
Thank you James, for your astute observation, your meticulous eye for detail and your vigilant vision! I did mean to correct it but you know how these thing slip by one. I'm still trying to get my mind on moving house, finding another house, having surgery and of course getting my wheel design verified. I might decide to take a month off and go to Spain for some relaxation in the sun. But thanks for reminding me, my memory was never brilliant but now.........
DeleteJC
I had a so-so day testing my model, the lightest spring I could find was still too strong.
ReplyDeleteThe heavy weight that tensions the spring really struggled to apply the necessary torque, and the small over-balancing weight hits with a bang when I load it myself.
However, when the small weight flips up, it does indeed make the beam move past the 12 O'clock position.
All this does encourage me to build on a bigger scale, more suited to my crude construction techniques.
BTW, judging by my moderate success, and the action of my weights, I think the childsplay might be bilboquet, also, it is similar to the action of a flail.
If your approach uses centrifugal force to adjust the weights, then it will be very tricky to get it to work just right. Meanwhile, below is a link to a "bilboquet", also known as a "cup and ball", which is a toy that may actually go back to ancient times. Come to think of it, I vaguely recall having something like this as a kid, but it was made of plastic, of course.
Deletehttp://tour2main.o.t.f.unblog.fr/files/2009/03/dsc02401.jpg
@ Ken,
DeleteI'm not using centrifugal force, in fact it would upset the way the weights work, that also may be why Bessler had to use pendulums to regulate his wheels speed.
I'm using what could best be described as a squeezing action, which also fits in with the lazy tongs on the toys page, a few more clues on the toys page seem to match my idea also.
Hi! I am very interested in getting into this game, of trying to solve the Bessler puzzle. Is it really $3000 to play (say this because see many people use WM2D, which costs this much, which I don't know if I am willing to spend)? What are the simulators one can use? What are my options available to try out my ideas as others have? Besides actually building, which I don't have facilities for doing. Is anyone reading this willing to sell me used copy of wm2d for small price? What are all these simulators Mimi is talking about? Maybe there is good one that is free?
ReplyDeleteWelcome aboard, QS. Actually, it can cost next to nothing to "play" this game. Some pm chasers are content to just endlessly philosophize about the subject and intend to build something someday which they never seem to get around to doing. Others, with more energy and equipment, try to produce physical "builds" of various types. They produce wheels, pendulums, and rocking beams that are intended to maintain perpetual movement, but are always one little tweak away from working. Still, others, like myself, are content to do their "building" of virtual models at warp speed on a computer monitor. With a good simulation program, one can compress days of labor in a shop into a few minutes on a computer and get almost immediate and very reliable results.
DeleteThe people who make Working Model 2D used to offer a free download for "evaluation purposes", but I don't know if they still do. They would also send out, upon request, a free CD with the program on it. I have that CD and am currently using it for the modeling I'm now doing on my laptop. That free software, however, is not the "full" version which allows one to Save his progress. It can, however, be "opened" to the full version if one has the correct "serial number key" that one gets after paying them for it. I think they have a reduced price for students and hobbyists of a few hundred dollars. However, if you look around, you might find a CD with the key for sale online somewhere for far less.
Anyway, I look forward to reading more of your quest to solve the Bessler wheel mystery. The more researchers working on it, the better and the higher the probability that it will be solved. Personally, I am firmly convinced that this will be the year that happens!
Hi Quazgaa
DeleteFor 2D simulation I've always preferred silux, a free (full) program, from http://www.silux.com/ But I think you'll need access to a 32-bit computer to be able to extract it. I had a couple of posts on this starting at http://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.com/2014/04/computer-modelling-in-2d-part-i.html
If you're looking at 3D modelling, my pick would be Universal Mechanism, at http://www.universalmechanism.com/en. Like many Russian things, it's very good, and very cheap! It only cost me $150 US. Currently they're offering UM7.0 with a 3 month free licence. They also have UM Lite which is always free. You can of course do 2D modelling with a 3D program.
Thank you very much, arktos1001! This is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to know. Now I have downloaded silux and am trying to learn it, but he refers to a User Manual and a Script Language Guide and where those are I just don't know. Would be a big help for me to learn how to use it.
DeleteAnd something else. When I run the GUI, silux does something I really hate. It immediately runs my CPU up to full 100% use, as seen in Windows Task Manager. Whenever I see this happen, I figure there is some kind of problem in the software, like it has gotten itself into an infinite loop! So I am wondering whether or not I am having some kind of problem with running this on this old laptop I am using which is running Windows XP. Or is that just the way Silux works.
Welcome Quazgaa,
ReplyDeletesome people swear by simulators, but with my crazy ideas WM2D cannot duplicate some of the mechanisms.
The model I'm experimenting with at the moment cost less than $3 US !
I'm using a scrap of wood, 1.5 in. X 0.5 in. X 18 in. Fishing weights, and the rods are cut up coat hangars, the weights are fixed to the rods by using electrical terminal strips with the insulation taken off, and cut in half, so as to use just one screw.
No bearings, just loose fits in the hole, yet still I'm getting good results.
Now that I have removed the splinters from my fingers from all the head scratching, I can give a quick update.
ReplyDeleteI have just realized the blindingly obvious solution to my spring problem. Instead of trying to make the spring fit the weight, I can make the weight fit the spring, DUH !
I intend to make a 4 ft. model, so a 1 ft. arm will be all I need, I'll rig up my spring device, and use a spring balance to check the pull, afterwards I'll fix a plastic screw-top jar to the arm, and slowly fill it with sand to get the weight and speed just right. All the other weights can be calculated the same way.
I'm looking to raise about 1 to 2 lbs.
I've had the same problem myself. It's much easier to change a part mass than it is a spring. And, btw, since springs can be expensive, one must make every effort not to keep damaging them when making a physical build. Most springs are not intended to be stretched more than 50% of their original relaxed length. If one does that, then one will exceed their elastic limit and the risk of permanent damage increases. How does one know his spring has been permanently damaged? Simple. When relaxed, it does not contract back to its original length. Once that happens, it's scrap metal. This is one of the nice advantages of using simulation programs. You never have to pay for springs again and the virtual ones you use can not be damaged. Btw, from my modeling of Bessler's wheels, I think that the suspension springs he used probably had a minimum unstretched length of about 5 inches.
DeleteA better site to access the silux download, than the obsolescent one I gave above, is http://www.silux.com/software_download.cfm. (It also has the three free pdf documents needed to get started).
ReplyDeleteThank you for the update, John.
ReplyDeleteUpdate: My testing of models #1462 and #1463 has been delayed a while due to other things requiring my attention. I hope to have it completed before the end of this week, however. Meanwhile, I've made a few totally unexpected discoveries with regard to the DT portraits. The first is that they actually contain the parameter values needed to construct at least three of his wheels! Those being his 3 foot prototype and both the Merseberg and Kassel wheels and it's even possible they may contain the component parameters for both the Gera and Draschwitz wheels. These values were carefully encoded into the drawings themselves and even alphanumerically into the text below the drawings. Also, there are actually four clocks in the second portrait! One is obvious, but the other three are carefully hidden. This is the most fascinating thing about Bessler research. Just when you think you've finally touched bottom on the matter, you suddenly realize that there is yet another layer separating you from the final solution you seek. Well, as in searching for buried treasure, you must do two things: make sure your digging where it says "X" on the map and keep digging until your shovel finally hits the buried chest full of gold. But, digging can be a tiring process so I hope I'm now on top of that chest!
ReplyDeleteWell guys,
ReplyDeleteI had a good day today, I managed to raise my 1 lb. weight on a 1 ft. arm, and I probably could lift a lot more.
I didn't use a spring though, I remembered I had a nice piece of spear-gun rubber stashed away. Sometimes it pays to live in the tropics !
Elastic bands can make an acceptable substitute for metal springs and, generally, have much larger elastic limits. They are also lighter and that can be an advantage when a model must be carefully balanced. I estimate the weight of the springs in one of Bessler's 12 foot diameter wheels to be in the range of 8 to 16 lbs. Really not that much considering we're dealing with wheels with a gross weight of either 360 or 500+ pounds. I'm not sure if elastics have the same longevity as do metal springs. I think they had latex rubber from the "New World" in Europe during the life of Bessler, but he probably never used it because of its poor longevity.
Delete