Saturday 19 March 2016

The Difference Between Heaviness and Gravity.

I tried, in my previous post, to define the subtle difference between the force of gravity and something that Bessler understood as the heaviness of an object.  This may seem like splitting hairs and that there are no differences, but bear with me.

What is the difference between gravity and energy.  We are told that the reason why the force of gravity cannot be the source of energy is because energy is a property of objects, such as balls and weights etc. In contrast, the word force describes the interaction between objects. Forces are the way that energy is transferred from one object to another when they interact, but forces are not the energy itself. Gravity is a force  and it provides one way for objects to exchange and transform energy to different states.

People speak of energy as if it is a thing, and of course we all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and transported. The reason that energy has all these aspects is that, unlike many conditions that objects may be subject to, energy is conserved; the condition of having energy is always passed from one object to another, never created anew or destroyed.

Remember Bessler's words from his Apologia Poetica?  "The rain drips down. Snow falls. The shotgun shoots. The bow twangs", he is refering to motion not the cause of the motion. I used to think he meant gravity, but because he included two motions not applicable to gravity, I think he was simply pointing to motion and emphasizing the fact by including the bow and the shot gun. I'm certain that he was describing in particular the motion of falling - the reaction to gravity, to the action of things that are imbued with heaviness when they were allowed to fall.

So if I stand by a wall and try as hard as I can to push it over, as far as the wall is concerned I haven't spent an ounce of energy, because it hasn't moved.  Forget the fact that I'm panting, sweating and very hot.  But what if the the wall suddenly gives way and falls over?  A snapshot of one second during my ten minutes of pushing is the moment when my energy output which was a force, changed the potential energy I was providing into kinetic energy as the wall fell. So the only energy I gave the wall that made it fall was that expended during that single second.

Imagine I'm standing on a trap-door.  For me it's the same as standing on solid ground, until someone pulls a lever and I fall through the hole.  As long as I'm standing on the trap door I'm like the force I was exerting against the wall.  Nothing changes until the lever releases me then the potential energy that was my weight is released and it changes into kinetic energy.

Now picture Bessler's wheel.  It has the weights suspended from some part of the wheel.  The force of gravity is a force imbuing the weights with heaviness, but nothing happens because no weight falls.  But we know that Bessler's wheel began to rotate spontaneously, which can only have happened if one weight or more was in a position which overbalanced the wheel.  Overbalancing motion occurs when there is more kinetic energy on one side of the centre of rotation than the other.  If it was potential energy on each side and there was more potential energy on one side of the CoR than the other, the weight would fall, but only when the brake was released, the wall gave way, or the lever was pulled which released the trap door, that is why, as soon as the wheel was released it began to turn.

The force of gravity had unlocked the potential energy and converted it into kinetic energy, but only during the period of its fall.   It had to wait for the wheel to be released before it could change the potential energy locked up in the weights; the trap-door had to be released before I fell; and the wall had to give way before my potential energy was converted to kinetic energy.

Jean Bernouille said perpetual motion seekers should seek a movement in Nature to adapt to a perpetual motion machine; the falling of any object of mass, is that natural motion in Nature.  What we are doing or trying to do is make use of something which is already happening, that is, a weight is falling.  Gravity has already changed the weight's potential energy into kinetic energy.  The energy was already there it just needed releasing by allowing it to fall and produce usable enregy in the form of kinetic energy.

When the wall fell over, and the kinetic energy was released in that single second, it wasn't new energy; the potential energy had been there ever since someone built the wall.  The trap door fell because someone locked it upwards into position and it was that energy that was released when it fell, and the same applies to the weights in Bessler's wheel.  Their potential energy had been there since he built the wheel ...But, how did it repeatedly acquire new potential energy for its next fall? Before I respond consider the following.

I've said before that those who suggest that Bessler's wheel were stopped in a certain point during rotation are wrong.  If you have a wheel which appears to spin continuously it must always be out of balance.  Why?  Because if there were points during rotation where it wasn't out of balance it would stop if a sufficient load were placed upon it.  With no load, rotation might well be carried past the dead zones purely by impetus, but as soon as a heavy enough load were placed on it, you would notice a variation in speed during a single rotation and the heavier the load the more likely the wheel would come to a stop.  But one of the most impressive things about Bessler's wheel was its very steady rotation. This supports the idea that the wheels were always out of balance, anything else would show up. But anyway logic demands that a continuously turning wheel must be continuously out of balance.

The oldest argument against these weight-driven wheels is that a weight falling in a circle cannot have enough energy generated by its fall to enable it to return to its starting point.  Do people think we are so dim that we have not discovered that fact for ourselves long ago, as if we didn't already know it?  Why on earth do those same people stick with the old, old formula of one single weight to demonstrate their flawed argument?  Do they really think that there is no way to get a weight back to its starting point with the assistance of other weights operating in different ways - a special configuration of a number of weights?

In my opinion Bessler's wheel did not try to tap gravity for its energy source, mainly because he did not know of this exterior force of nature, all he knew about was that his weights were heavy and did not prodice energy unless they were falling.  He worked out that the inherent heaviness in each weight provided the fall and his most difficult achievement was to find a way to configur his weights so that there was spare action available to return each fallen weight back to ts starting point

JC

1. Nice blog topic, John. Here are some of my thoughts.

"The rain flows. Snow falls.
The jack fires. The bow twangs;
a large herd of fat, lazy,
plump horses wanders aimlessly."

These are all metaphors that occurred to Bessler as he observed the motions of the weighted levers in his running wheels before he concealed their sides with dyed and oiled cloth. The vertical motions of rain and snow are clearly suggested. Rain moves quickly and snow slowly. The ascending side weights in his wheels, on average, rose slower than the descending side weights dropped because of the maintained imbalance of the center of mass of the weights and levers on the wheel's descending side. The jack or shotgun fires and the bow twangs refer to sudden motions and spring tension. After having previously slowed down so much, the weights passing the 9 o'clock position of the drum would show a dramatic increase in their swinging motion and I also see this odd effect in my model wheels. The large herd of fat, lazy, plump horses might refer to the lead weights which could be considered "fat" because of their high density undergoing retrograde motion in the inactive one directional wheel of a two direction wheel. Their center of mass was maintained at the center of the axle so they provided no torque and did no work and were, thus, "lazy". They "wander aimlessly" because they are all locked up against their rim stops and just rotate along with the wheel and go nowhere.

You wrote: "So if I stand by a wall and try as hard as I can to push it over, as far as the wall is concerned I haven't spent an ounce of energy, because it hasn't moved. Forget the fact that I'm panting, sweating and very hot."

Actually, even though you do not notice the wall moving, the force of your hands on the materials of the wall causes a build up of strain in them and it does move a tiny bit. Because you have applied a force to the wall and it has moved a very slight amount, you have expended energy and, thus, performed work on the wall. You have to think on the microscopic level in such a situation. As the outer electrons in the atoms of the skin of your hands contact the outer electrons in the atoms of the wall, these two sets of electrons repel each other with an increasing force as they come closer together. It is as though you were trying to compress trillions and trillions of microscopic springs and that requires that you expend energy to do so. The harder you press on the wall, the more electrostatic potential energy of repulsion is built up between the electrons in your hands and the wall's atoms and the more energy you have to expend to do this. At some point that energy you've stored between these electrons may be sufficient to provide enough extra gravitational potential energy to lift one side of the wall up so that it begins to pivot around the lowest part of it which still remains in contact with the ground and then, once it passes its "tipping point", that raised section of the wall will suddenly convert all of its gravitational potential energy relative to the ground pivot into kinetic energy and it will fall over and hit the ground. At that time, the wall's kinetic energy will be converted into acoustic and thermal energy and the materials in the ground and wall at the contact surface will vibrate and warm up a bit. All energies and masses are conserved as this happens as required by the Conservation of Energy - Mass Law.

Update: I've partially completed the testing of my model #1477 for the 3 foot diameter prototype wheel on which Bessler first found success and, incredibly, after five seconds of simulated rotation, it's still accelerating! Usually by this time, the rpm versus time graph is showing the usual "keel pattern" as the plotted curve starts to bend upwards toward 0 rpm's. Not this time though! Stay tuned for further, hopefully joyous, news!

2. Ken have you ever took the lid off something that's mechanical and thought, Well I never new it worked like that. You would be amazed if you could have had the opportunity to look inside besslers wheel?

1. Oh, yes, I've had my share of "surprises" in life as, I'm sure, we all have. However, when it comes to Bessler's wheels, I don't think I would be that surprised. To be clear, though, I don't know everything in minute detail about them because those details are not covered in the DT portrait clues and, most probably, are not that important. Such details might be how Bessler affixed the cloth to the sides of his wheel's drums, the size of the nails he used to construct a drum's rigid framework, the type of rope used to interconnect the weighted levers, etc. The truth of the matter is that we will never know these things with certainty unless John can somehow recover a lost schematic Bessler made that he forgot to "burn and bury" after his arrest. That does not mean, however, that we are powerless to successfully reverse engineer his wheels and build working replicas. I have no doubt that this will eventually happen. My goal by finally unraveling the essential details of his secret imbalanced pm wheels is, aside from allowing them to be duplicated, to vindicate him as a, basically, truthful person who actually did construct a working pm wheel in the early 18th. One can get into much debate as to whether his wheels really were perpetual. I don't think there is such a thing as a truly perpetual motion machine. All, imo, must be tapping the energy content associated with the masses of their moving components. Once that energy is gone (after billions of years!), those components will be massless and the devices using them will cease operation. Aside from the obvious motion of an imbalanced wheel as long as it remains imbalanced during its rotation, I doubt if Bessler was aware of any of this. It would take about two centuries before physicists would be aware of the immense energy contained in a four pound cylinder of lead. If released suddenly, it would be sufficient to destroy a modern city!

2. So if you completed a working wheel tomorrow we still wouldn't know whether its Orffyreus besslers design or not

3. Well, if its construction parameters are given in the DT portrait clues and its performance matches that described by witnesses for his larger scale wheels, it would seem highly probable that it was actually the design Bessler found and used. I'm sure that, if I find success and publish the design and it leads to working physical versions, there will still be some who will insist it can not be what Bessler had. In most cases, these skeptics will be individuals who are committed to some design they've worked on, unsuccessfully, for years or even decades and they are very emotionally invested in seeing it work to justify all of the effort they made. I can understand where they are coming from. Abandoning one's pet approach to accept another, even if the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it is "it", is not an easy thing to do. Some people handle change better than others.

3. Ken, just for instance if I myself produce a so called working wheel that I had to push to start, would it be a bessler wheel, remember he's wheel started spontaneously or could you be wrong

1. If you need to push a one direction wheel to get it started, then it can not have the same mechanics Bessler had. All of his one directional wheels were self starting. If, however, you have a two direction wheel and it must be pushed to start, then it could, possibly, have the same mechanics that Bessler's two direction wheels used. From what I know of his two direction wheels, they were basically just two one directional wheels mounted on the same axle so that each was trying to spontaneously turn the axle in the opposite direction from that which the other was trying to turn it. The result was that no motion took place. However, when one of his two direction wheels was given a push to start it turning in one of its two possible directions, one of its one directional wheel inside of its drum was then forced to rotate counter to the direction it was intended to spontaneously turn in. Using a very unique gravity latching system, all of the weights in that one directional wheel would then be locked against their rim stops and remain there. That then placed the center of mass of that one direction wheel's weights and their levers at the exact center of the axle where it could contribute no torque to the drum's motion. At that point the axle, drum, and locked up wheel were being accelerated solely by the single one direction wheel that still kept the center of mass of its weights and levers on the descending side of the drum. Imo, if you have a two direction wheel and it does not use two one direction wheels that employ this gravity activated latching system, then it can not have the same mechanics that Bessler used. Sorry if I sound a bit dogmatic about all of this, but one can become so after almost 1500 attempts to reverse engineer Bessler's wheels. I still do not have all of the details about his wheels that I would like to have, but I am close to 100% certain about what I've written above. However, even if you or John or anybody else does not actually have "the" design that Bessler found and used, there is still the possibility that you may achieve pm with it anyway. Despite not being Bessler's particular design, that too would be something to be very proud of considering how extremely rare success is in this subject. In any event, I wish you and others the best in your efforts to achieve pm. The successful reverse engineering of Bessler's wheels will, no doubt, help to energize the entire field of free energy and, considering all of the concern over the carbon emissions from fossil fuels nowadays, the time for success has never been better.

2. Thanks ken, I appreciate your honesty.

4. Taken all together from my side:
If you do not see or have any tresher, anvil, raindrop, snowflake, bow, lazy horses, cats with mouse, dog with his kennel, children play among, +, +, +, ... All those in your setup, then this is not it! If you really have it... Then any Bessler enthusiast sees all, also in some drawings, metaphors ...and other "clues", by 85..98% accuracy! In some "main" points also 100% accuracy. Now for sure in that. Your will all be amazed how simple finally all is..
Just waiting now Johns next final moves. There is lot of good "remarks" in John last topic. I hope that John have got this also right.

All the best

Eastlander

5. John said "But we know that Bessler's wheel began to rotate spontaneously"

Here's Bessler's quote from AP (translation by Mike Senior)

"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." - pg 271

Stewart's translation did not include the word "spontaneously' as he said it literally wasn't there.

1. I wonder if Bessler slept on the night he finally found "it"? Imagine struggling for a decade and having one failure after another and then, suddenly, there "it" is! The only thing I can think of that would be on a par with it is checking one's lottery ticket and realizing he's just hit a jackpot worth hundreds of millions of dollars!

2. The meaning was "which could move a little..." Mike's translation was 'free' translation, in other word he tried to give the feeling behind the words. as I've said before we never anticipated that people would pick apart his work and we had a choice, it was my decision not to translate lsiterally. Remember also that there were several witness report about the wheel's spontaneous start upon the release of the brake.

JC

3. The other thing worth noting is no one commented that the wheel had to maintain a certain speed (or range of speed) to be self driven. This suggests the internal mechanism (prime mover) did its thing regardless of wheel rotation speed. If there were 8 weights as some have suggested, then the wheel would have it greatest potential when the weight(s) shifted, say at 12, then slowly fade through the next 45 degrees, then repeat. This pulsing potential may have been noticeable at very slow revolutions, but when up to speed, it would not. So what type of prime mover movement can produce the same jack/lift regardless of wheel rotation speed? Only one I can think of. Some think that as the wheel turned faster, the prime mover would have less time to complete its movement, but I think the wheels rotation aided the prime mover and just made it perform its movement quicker. So what type of prime mover movement can be made to occur faster as the wheel turns faster?

4. I see the imbalanced pm wheel mechanics Bessler used as, basically, being its own prime mover. That is, at any time 6 of the 8 weighted levers were being shifted by the remaining two that acted as prime movers. Then, after 90 degrees of wheel rotation, it was the turn for the two prime mover levers to be shifted by two of the formerly shifted levers taking their place. This system functions well at low rotation rates, but become progressively more inefficient as wheel rotation rate and the centrifugal forces it creates on the weights and their levers increase. That means that, from a standstill, one starts off at low speed with high torque and maxes out at a high speed with the minimum amount of torque needed to equal air and bearing drag. Somewhere between those extremes was the "sweet spot" or particular rotation rate and axle torque that provided the maximum power output for a wheel. No doubt, those pendulums Bessler attached to the axles of his wheels were intended to restrict, via harmonic dampening, the rotation rate to that particular value. Why do we not read of any of the examiners of his wheels discussing the pendulums? Most likely because he removed the pendulums during examinations so that the wheels would turn at their maximum and most impressive speed and to allow the examiners to more easily inspect the axle bearings. Also, allowing a wheel to reach its maximum speed would also built up the maximum amount of angular momentum in a wheel which would be needed to hoist a load of bricks as quickly as possible without there being a noticeable decrease in rotation rate. By sliding the vertical bob weights on the pendulums to their lowest position, Bessler could force a wheel to turn at a rate below the maximum power output rate. I believe this was done so that a wheel could turn continuously yet would complete the minimum number of drum revolutions per hour. That helped decrease the wear and tear on its various bearings, ropes, and springs.

6. On the subject of gravity you may want to watch Horizon this week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0752f85
Wednesday BBC two 8pm.

1. Thanks for the link, definitely worth watching.

JC

7. Following is response to Ken's last comment to John's previous blog post (March 14) (but putting it here because I get impression people don't read old blog posts so):

In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, he postulates that what we perceive as gravity is the result of the distortion of space-time as a result of massive bodies. He also theorized the notion of gravity waves, which recently they seem to have detected directly. To me, it is hard to believe that something like a distortion of space (or space-time, whatever that is) could account for things like, an apple falling from a tree. Newton saw that this and the moon's orbiting the Earth were result of the same force. It seems Einstein did the reverse. I have seen relativists try to explain why heavenly bodies orbit (show large heavy mass bending sheet of rubber) over and over again. But I have never seen them try to explain why if I toss a ball out a few feet in front of me, it drops calamitously. This space-time thing must be REALLY warped right in our own vicinity to causes such a thing! And yet, I don't notice space being differently warped, based on what direction my vision is pointed. Therefore, does this mean that simply time is distorted in such a way as to cause things to drop the way they do. Causes a ball to make a parabola if I toss it into the air at an upward angle.

1. Einstein started with the basic and very paradoxical assumption that the velocity of light was constant regardless of the motion of its source or that of an observer. That assumption seems to be supported by later experiments. Once he had that assumption, he went on to develop his Special and General Theories of Relativity and it was in the general theory that he came up with a new model for gravity based on the idea that what we call gravitational force is really just an inertial force that arises as objects attempt to move in straight trajectories through distorted or warped "four dimensional space-time". The problem with this approach is that it requires that all masses cause the distortion of the space-time continuum surrounding them and how this happens is not explained by his theory. You have to just accept that it happens. It took about three decades for the physics world to grudgingly embrace Einstein's theories and, because of the advanced math needed to fully understand them, that only really happened because the predictions the theories made were being verified by actual empirical measurements. Unfortunately, as has often been demonstrated in the history of science, just because a theory can accurately predict measurements in the real world does not necessarily mean that the assumptions of the theory correspond to physical reality. Most likely, sooner or later some effects will be encountered for which Einstein's theories can not account. When that happens either his theories will need to be modified to do so or, if that is not possible, they will have to be abandoned in favor of a more workable theory. Personally, while I admire Einstein's tenacity in promoting his research on light and gravity, I've never liked the idea of space-time which requires us to view time as a dimension on the same par with spatial dimensions. That seems somewhat artificial and contrived to me. So, until further notice, I am staying with the view of Newton that gravity is due to a force that arises between two objects with mass and causes them to try to come together. The question to be answered is just what causes that force. Newton tried to answer it throughout his life, but finally gave up. I believe the physics of the future will successfully answer that question and it won't involve using a difficult to visualize concept like four dimensional space-time. Sorry, Einstein. You are and remain a personal hero of mine, but if I had a working time machine capable of backwards time travel (something, btw, forbidden by relativity theory!), I'd go back to Berlin around 1913 and desperately try to talk you out of all of this space-time stuff and into formulating something that would have made Newton a very happy physicist.

2. I am a positivist who believes that physical theories are just mathematical models we construct, and that it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality, just whether they predict observations.
S. Hawking

3. "...physical theories are just mathematical models we construct, and that it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality, just whether they predict observations."

When it comes to the physical validity of a theory, I trust my gut instinct. As it starts to make me abandon Newtonian physics more and more, I begin to develop an ever increasing bellyache. Oh, it can account for empirical data? That is really irrelevant because any theory will account for the data used to formulate it. The real question is whether it can account for the data not used to formulate it. As improvements in measuring empirical data continue, older theories will be constantly challenged to account for that data. When they can't, apologists will surface that will try to patch them up and make them account for them. Failing that, it's time for a paradigm shift. I look at the quantum and relativity theories of the 20th centuries as just another passing fad that will be considered "quaint" a century from now!

8. Don't worry guys, this fella's got it all figured out.

Well as far as Ken can make out anyway, it's as clear as mud to me ! :-D

1. Lol! I'm a bit dubious about people covered with tattoos "explaining" physics to me. He says in the beginning "Einstein discovered nothing and invented nothing." Really? I guess then that they gave him the Nobel Prize in physics for his good looks maybe? Lol.

2. Ken,
I know you're into magnetic motors, what do you make of this one, seems plausible to me.

http://rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm

The photo's of the reproduction don't come up on the main page, but you can see them if you click the link.

3. That guy has to be the worst instructor I have ever heard. He can't use the word 'simple', he has to say 'simplex'. Reminds me of the blather that comes from many of the members on www.besslerwheel.com. Add a spring and its ready for patent.

4. @STEVO: I think the "Gary Effect" is rather interesting. He claimed he found what he called the "neutral line" surrounding a the two poles of a horseshoe magnet. A piece of soft iron placed on the neutral line would exhibit some unusual behavior which was that it would become "depolarized" which meant that, when at that exact position, it had no magnetic field induced inside of it by the horseshoe magnet. If, however, it was moved slightly closer to the magnet than the neutral line, it would suddenly be polarized in one direction and, if it was moved slightly farther from magnet than the neutral line, it would be polarized in the opposite direction. By wrapping a coil of wire around the piece of metal and then moving it rapidly from one side of the neutral line to the other, one could then generate an alternating current in the coil. That current would then be OU and could be used to power the mechanics that kept the piece of metal rapidly moving from one side of the neutral line to the other and also any outside machinery attached to the motor. Apparently, he claimed he did build this motor and there were some who witnessed its operation. He also had a simpler version for demonstrating the principle which used a rocking beam that would use magnetic attraction to keep the beam constantly rocking. The beam would, as its magnets were lifted up toward the poles of a larger horseshoe magnet, interpose a soft iron shield between the magnets at the neutral lines of both magnets. Once that happened, the magnetic attraction was greatly reduced and the end of the beam would fall back down at which point the shield also fell so that the magnet at the end of the beam could be lifted again. The device, once allowed to start, would move continuously until stopped.

It certainly sounds interesting and has much in common with the Bessler story: a working model was built, witnesses saw it running, he describes the action in Canadian patent applications, etc., etc. Since Gary's death many have attempted to duplicate his rocking beam and motor using the principle he discovered. No one has succeeded so far. Below is a link to a builder showing his attempt to duplicate the rocking beam device. As of the date of his video, he has not been successful in getting it to work.

5. Ken,
I've just carried out a little experiment, using two magnetic cabinet latches.
The exposed metal strips sandwich a magnet, so one's N pole, the other S pole.
I placed one on the top of my desk, and drew a line along the leading edge.
Next, I slowly slid another magnet towards it, and when the gap was 15mm. the magnets repelled.
I then took the metal plate from the set, and put it as close as I could to one magnet, without it being attracted, 5.5mm.
When I slid the second magnet towards it, nothing, no repulsion, the sliding magnet eventually stuck to the plate, and as I moved both nearer the first magnet I got attraction.
I then turned one magnet upside down, and got attraction at 15mm. and also attraction with the metal plate in place.
There may be something in it after all.

6. STEVO: Sounds like the Gary Effect has captured your interest. Good! It's something that one can fiddle around with that only uses two magnets and a piece of soft iron. You might consider trying to construct his rocking beam device with two magnets. Apparently, introducing and withdrawing the shield at their neutral lines requires very little energy. You might need to construct a simple lever type mechanism that will raise the shield just as soon as the magnet on the lever begins to drop. The problem with Gary's devices is that it would be almost impossible today to obtain the exact parts he used. That then requires the builder to do much adjustment in order to get it to work. In any event, good luck if you try to build something and do, of course, keep us all informed of what progress, if any, you make.

7. @ Ken,
another little test occurred to me, I set up the two magnets, 15mm. apart, with the plate at 5.5mm. distance from one, then removed the plate, what happened next surprised me, it took a split second for the magnets to repel.

Now, what has this to do with Bessler ?
Imagine the wheels weights were magnetic, and spring loaded to pull back towards the hub, when they align with an attracting magnet, at the top, they are pulled out, and latched with a gravity catch, then a metal shield is swung in between the two magnets, with the pendulum, breaking the field.
The wheel is over-balanced, but not magnetically attracted, so it will turn.
The gravity catch is made to release at the 6 O'clock position.

8. Sounds interesting, but don't forget that Bessler used lead weights which were nonmagnetic. Also, Bessler's strongest magnet would have been a mineral called "magnetite" also known as "lodestone". It was a rather weak natural magnet only good for magnetizing compass needles.

9. Here's one I've not seen before. The inventor claims he has an overunity rotating beam. It's just two weights at the end of a long beam, but one of the weights is the fuselage of a model airplane minus it's wings with an electrically powered propeller. As the beam rotates there are permanent magnets inside of wire coils near the hub that slide up and down inside of the coils and produce electrical current. That current is routed to the motor of the model airplane's motor and, as it drives the propeller, there is enough torque created to keep the beam rotating. Of course, he only shows about a minute or so of the rotation. To fully convince me, I'd have to see this setup running for, say, an hour or more. Interestingly, he does not mention that there are any batteries involved with the device which suggests that one need only give it a spin to get it running.

10. Hello John & Ken & everyone else, I was wondering; Does the fact that weights were herd "hitting" the side of Bessler's gravity wheel mean anything? I understand that they acted in pairs so, does that mean that on the way down, they both hit on each side of the descending side of the wheel?

1. The weights were "gently" alighting on wooden stops affixed to the inner curving surface of the drum's rim. Only one of the cylindrical weights was landing on a descending side rim stop at a time and it would have landed with its central axis parallel to the plane of the stop's surface (which means the axis was also parallel to the drum's axle). That then spread the weight of the lead cylinder out over the full width of the stop and would have reduced damage to the lead weights which, being made of lead, were somewhat soft and could be deformed by repeated harder impacts.

Be cautious in considering the detail of the weights "acting in pairs". I interpret this as simply meaning that as each weight was approaching its rim stop on the drum's descending side, a diametrically opposite weight on the ascending side was swinging inward toward the axle. That constant and repeated action was how the mechanics of a wheel managed to keep the center of mass of its weights and levers on the descending side of the drum despite its rotation.

Update: Well, I just renamed my wm2d model #1477 as #1478 and completed the testing of it. When allowed to start from a standstill and freely rotate, it maintained continuous acceleration throughout a 7.5 second test run. I then increased the test time to 15 seconds and, again, it accelerated throughout the entire test run! One might think that at this point I would be ready to declare victory and start celebrating with the "official" rediscovery time being about 12 noon EDST, Monday, March 21st, 2016. But, not so fast!

Yes, the 3 foot model wheel continuously increased it rotation rate during the test runs, but it was a very slow acceleration. After 15 seconds the speed only reached 0.1 rpm! That seems way too slow to me and, because there are springs involved, there is the possibility that what I'm seeing here is some frame computational error showing up. The design needs to have much more testing before I would feel confident that it is "it". But, I must admit, it's nice to see something other than a keel this time. Stay tuned for further developments.

11. Sorry guys, unable to comment at this time as I'm in throes of moving house - actually move out tomorrow (Tuesday) so electricity, broadband etc cut off. I'll be back on wednesday or thursday hopefully.

JC

1. Good luck with the move, John.

12. Yes John, good luck once again.

For anyone that's interested, the Gary effect is for real, this morning I made a small see-saw out of a plastic ruler and a pencil, held together with an elastic band, then blu-tacked a magnet on the end. (technical eh ? )
Balanced it so the leverage of the non-magnet end raised the magnet end.
Then I held the second magnet just above the see-saw magnet, so it repelled it down.
Next I passed a 80mm. nail across the face of the fixed magnet, and just past the neutral point, the see-saw magnet was attracted upwards toward the nail.
Moving the nail up, the fixed magnet drove the see-saw magnet down.
The only problem I can see is, that to raise and lower the nail, it may take more force than the see-saw can muster.

1. Wow! Sounds like you're on your way to duplicating Gary's rocking beam device! If you are successful, then that will be big news in the free energy community and you'll see many others trying to replicate your achievement. The problem now is to figure out some way to have the device move the nail itself. You don't, of course, have to use a nail and could use a small thin sheet of soft iron. Gary rigged up a secondary lever to lift and lower his light weight iron shield inside of the neutral line and that secondary lever was operated by the main rocking beam lever. If you get it working, consider uploading a video to youtube as there will be many, me included, who will want to view it. Expect a lot of skeptics to crop up and claim it's all a hoax. As others duplicate the design and show it working, the negative noise of the detractors will be silenced. Well, it's not the mechanics Bessler used, but it will still be perpetual!

2. @ Ken,
Yes, I think I will make that my next project. I will dispute the neutral zone theory though, it seems to me that what is happening is, that the see-saw magnets attraction to the nail is stronger than the repulsion from the fixed magnet. Any way so long as it works, I can't believe that it took me less than 10 minutes to knock up a simple test rig, when Gary took over four years, the tricky bit must be the raising of the soft iron.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

13. If you can not get the Gary device operational, here's something else involving magnetic shielding that you might find of interest:

1. Thanks Ken,
the first demo with the file between two repelling magnets, must be what's happening with the nail on my rig.
Rather than shielding, I was thinking of using bismuth (diamagnetic) if necessary.
I'll go with the original concept first though.

14. Update: Joyfully, I think I've made a very important breakthrough in my Bessler research. I'm at wm2d model #1480 now and found several clues in the two DT portraits that indicated a certain lever mass was used. I decided to try it and ran a partial test of the resulting 3 foot diameter wheel. To my surprise, after only about 3.5 seconds of simulated rotation (one needs about 10 seconds to produce the results for a full 45 degree segment of wheel rotation), the wheel accelerated to about 0.5 rpm. That's five times greater in about a quarter of the time as was seen with model #1478 which I've dismissed as due to a glitch in the frame computations because of all of the springs in the design. Model #1480 is, therefore, accelerating at a far greater rate and I'm also noticing that there is virtually no lever oscillation showing up in the rpm versus time graph. A very good sign, indeed. The simulated test is not yet complete, but should be in another day or so. This, finally at long, long last, could really be "it"!

Anyway, this good news so energized me that I went back to work on the illustrations for my planned "ultimate" Bessler book. I've corrected all of the lever shapes in the ten half wheel figures (left side and right side levers) for the wheel's five coordinating rope layers. It was a herculean effort involving redoing 50 individual levers! Not completely exhausted by that, I then began working on my first illustration for the section of the book that will delve into the abundance of clues contained in the two DT portraits. I've decided to begin with an analysis of the clues in the second DT portrait because, once they are known, the analysis of the first DT portrait's clues becomes child's play. I suspect that this week could be a very important one for my Bessler research. Stay tuned troops!

15. Found another guy claiming to have an "unbalanced" wheel. Here's the short video of it, but I'm suspicious because we are only see one side of the wheel. He probably has an electric motor on the other side that we do not see. But, then again, maybe he's done it!

Update: I just finished figure #20 for my planned book on Bessler. This was a very difficult illustration to complete, but, perhaps, one of the most important in the book. It shows a close up view of that weird little cone shaped graph in the second DT portrait. Every line in that graph is labeled and identified in my figure and much of his secret imbalanced pm mechanics is encoded into it. Well, I still have many more illustrations to do before I can feel like I've done a good job in presenting all of the clues given in the two DT portraits. I'll try to complete a figure per day. Meanwhile, I still have not completed the testing of my wm2d model #1480 which, so far with its partial testing, I am convinced must be "it". Well, it better be because I'm starting to use its various parameters in the illustrations I'm doing. If it's not "it", then I'll have to edit all of those illustrations when (if) I finally find "it" in the future. As I've mentioned before, I will only do the book if I do, to my satisfaction, believe I finally have "it". And, if I do the book, I want all of the illustrations done first so that, with that headache out of the way, I can then relax a bit and proceed to write the book around the illustrations. That's not the usual way I do things, but it should result in a nice, readable, easy to follow volume that the serious Bessler reverse engineers out there can use to duplicate one of Bessler's wheels. Stay tuned for further developments.

1. It`s rotating too fast, just been gravity driven. There can not accelerate above 9,8 m/s2, especially with this tiny wheel.

Happy Easter to everyone

Eastlander

16. I've been working on my Gary Device for the last two days, and have finally got the hand operated model working perfectly.
What I have found is.

1, That the downward force of the moving magnet is not strong enough to lift the soft iron.

2, Even if it were strong enough, there needs to be a delay between the lowering of the magnet, and the raising of the soft iron.

It may be possible to use leverage, and something like a rolling bearing to operate the device, but the moving magnet only travels 2.5mm. Not a lot to work with, I don't know if thicker magnets will give more travel.
I'll experiment for the next few days, and see what happens.

Happy Easter everyone.

1. And Happy Easter to you, too, STEVO.

Sounds like your having some problems with the Gary Effect. Why not try counter balancing the soft iron shield with the tension from a stretched nonmagnetic rubber band? That can be used to effectively lower its weight so that the moving magnet will be able to more easily lift it into position.

17. Update: I've completed Figure 21 and had to use two pages for it! It indicates certain key words in the text below the second portrait that, when alphanumerically decoded, help to verify the information given in that weird little radial graph in the portrait which I dealt with in figure 20. Today, I'm going to begin working on figure 22 that will point out some of the second DT portrait clues concerning the spring constants used in Bessler's 3 foot and 12 foot wheels as well as the mass of the weights and levers they used. As I'm starting to get into these illustrations, I'm beginning to appreciate how many I will need for the "ultimate" Bessler book. I might need as many as 35 or even 40! Incredibly, I have still not finished the wm2d model testing to verify that I've actually got "it"! If I don't, then all of these illustrations will have to be edited or even discarded. I'm stepping out on faith here and hoping I'll be walking on water when the testing is done. I shall definitely complete it in the coming week before I accumulate too many illustrations. For now, however, I'm focusing on the DT portrait clue illustrations because of their importance.

Meanwhile, here's a magnetically powered pendulum device that, supposedly, has been running nonstop for two years! There is no shielding involved. Rather, all magnetic interactions in it are repulsive. Each time the pendulum's bob magnets reach the limit of their swing to one side, a repelling magnet is lowered into place to give the bob a push toward the opposite side of its swing using gravity. If it's a fake, there would have to be an electromagnet hidden below the arc of the swinging bob that is activated at just the precise moment to give it a small increase in speed. But, then again, maybe it's genuine!!!

https://youtu.be/SZjNbjhxgt4

1. Seriously Ken. The metal plates slide up and down in wood grooves. Passing this on just 'perpetuates' their fraudulent activity. Shame on you. Hey wait a minutes, maybe I just found the principle of Bessler's wheel, fraud.

2. Yeah, it's probably a fake. But, I like how the design uses magnetic repulsions to activate itself instead of direct mechanical linkages. Also, I like the use of two bubble levels on the floor of the device to make sure it's perfectly level. The thing that makes me suspicious is those two black screw or bolt heads inside the glass case that seem to be holding the working parts to the base of the case. I can just imagine that once they (and the other two not seen on the other side) are removed, the works can be lifted out and one will find an electromagnet and battery hidden inside of the supposedly solid wooden floor of the device. But, then again, maybe not! I've heard of 19th century inventors who claimed they built and even demonstrated devices similar to this. They were probably all fakes...but, then again...?

18. I'm out of my house and temporarily living with my daughter, at last! It has taken almost a year to complete the sale, with two buyers changing their mind at the last moment, and then the CEO of a large auto mfr bought it but proved very difficult to contact as he shuttled between here, India, Chine, Brazil and the US, but we made it! Now we await completion of my mother-in-law's house and our new house! THEN.......I can get back to work on my wheel, and my explanation publication. I feel as if I'm in limbo right now.

I'll write a new post very soon, if only to knock KB's unremitting posting off centre stage.

JC

1. You're moving into a newly constructed house? Great. Nice to have all of the latest architectural features available. Something tells me that by the time you come out of "limbo", I'll have my "ultimate" Bessler book done! Good luck with everything and I look forward to your next blog topic.

Btw...speaking of new houses, here's a sneak peek at what the "door of the future" will look like. It's part door and part kinetic sculpture. This caught my eye because I was wondering if several of these carefully arranged around the rim of a wheel might be used to construct an imbalanced pm wheel.

2. Not newly constructed Ken, just new to me - and in need of some updating.

JC

19. Ken, you sound always like donkey in Shrek (John) tale. Always you have something to say, even there is not to say about anything. Yea.. keep going, there will be some color in this blog, BUT... my suggestion to Ken, make your own bog with all drawings/simulations and explanations. About all things that do not work, also from history. I promise that there will be so many readers as here.

1. I love those Shrek films! Yes, Donkey is an interesting character, but my favorite is actually "Gingy", the little ginger bread man. He only appears occasionally, but when he does it's really funny! Yeah, I've considered a blog of my own from time to time, but I don't want to start something unless I can keep it going forever and I just don't have the time or energy for something like that with all of the other projects I'm involved in. Best I just pop up here when things get too slow and try to provide some info or links that will trigger ideas and input from others. Meanwhile, I believe that I'm on the verge of the biggest discovery concerning Bessler's invention in the last three centuries! If I'm right this time, then the book that comes out of it will be a "classic" in the literature of perpetual motion machinery on a par with the work of Henry Dircks!

Btw. If there's anybody out there in pm land who has not yet read Dircks' awesome "Perpetual Mobile; Or Search for Self-Motive Power in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries", you can do so here:

https://archive.org/details/perpetuummobile01dircgoog

2. I've tried to get Ken to write his own blog but for some reason he won't. I'll even put a link to it on this page, but so far, nada.

JC

3. Ken, how do you not have the time to start a blog?! You practically write a novel's worth of comments with every post that John makes! I say you abandon this blog for your own and stop trying to steal John's thunder.

4. I'm really flattered that you guys seem to want me to start a separate blog. But, if it dealt strictly with Bessler's wheels, I think it would just be a replication of what's already being adequately covered here. I could try to cover other topics I'm interested in on it such as paranormal phenomena and UFOs, but then I'd have to provide blogs on each of them. That's a lot of work and time needed. Right now I'm immersed in the production of professional quality illustrations for my Bessler book and still have another book (already about 80% written!) on hold while I focus on the Bessler book. Aside from all of this, I also have a somewhat busy offline life. I'm actually lucky I'm able to provide what posts I do now here and on a few other sites. If and when my Bessler book is completed, I'm sure that it will really stir things up in the free energy community. I've found information Bessler left that no one is even aware of...yet! When it's released, all hell will break loose and John will probably have more traffic to this site then he ever thought possible!

20. Okay, John. Thanks for the update. Will be expecting to see your Hypothesis in about two weeks, then.

:-D

1. Humble apologies to all who await agog, for my Hypothesisi (irony!) it will happen as soon as it's finished.

JC

2. We're way past agog now, we're on life support.

We've gotten used to ken, i don't read his posts that drone on anyway.

21. I've just been thinking about the weights in Bessler's wheel.
Now, if the heavy weights are long thin wedge shapes, like two back to back pyramids, also with a slot in the middle, so the axle can pass through. It may work like this, when the weight, say 10Kg, is pointing at the 12 O'clock/6 O'clock positions, it will drop to the end of the slot, but because of its shape, most of the weight will still be centred around the axle, also it will not have to be lifted, just turned.
Using a cord the same way you raise and lower a flag, a small weight, say 2Kg. can be raised at the top, and same size weight can be drawn in at the bottom.
I think I read somewhere that Bessler said the weights do not move much, so if the slot allows the heavy weight to move 50mm. a 2:1 ratio pulley might do the trick.

22. Good insight stevo...but the weights used by bessler weren't the way you have described...

23. @STEVO: The problem is that we know that the weights used in the Merseburg wheel were 4 lb cylinders of lead. They were about the size of a small juice can and had a hole through their central axis. That hole probably allowed a long bolt to be put through them to secure them to the end of a lever. What you suggested about using a cord to raise one weight while another drops sounds like the principle used in many of the MT designs. Unfortunately, they do not manage to keep their center of masses on the wheels' descending sides and do not work.

24. Update: Yesterday I completed figure 23 for my planned Bessler book and thought I was done illustrating the various clues given in the second DT portrait. I was prepared to move on to illustrating some of the important clues in the first portrait. But, as fate would have it, I gave the second portrait another careful going over and, incredibly, I'm now starting to think that it not only gives the various parameters used in his House of Richters 3 ft diameter prototype and his Merseburg and Kassel two directional wheels, but it also provides the information needed to replicate both the one directional Gera and the Draschwitz wheels! In other words, it seems these two portraits are a complete guide to replicating all of his known wheels (with the exception of the last unexhibited one he built to sell to the Royal Society of London which, I suspect, was just another Gera sized wheel). This complicates the situation for me a bit, I want my "ultimate" Bessler book to be as complete as possible, but I thought that just covering the prototype, and the two 12 foot diameter wheels would be sufficient since I previously could find no clues about the Gera and Draschwitz wheels. That seems to be changing now and I may have to expand the number of illustrations to cover the clues coming out about the two smaller one directional wheels as well. All of this is emerging without me having yet finished the full testing of my model #1480 which I am convinced might be "it" based on a short partial test made a week ago. I have yet to make and test any model wheels that would use the newly emerging parameter data for the Gera and Merseburg wheels and what data I have about them is still incomplete. There are a lot of loose ends here and, hopefully, by the end of this week I'll have some of them tied up and will better know what direction to head it.

Meanwhile, check out this pm chaser's beautiful handiwork. His wheel is made completely of wood except for the weights and uses gears in an attempt to keep the center of mass of the weights on the descending side. Unfortunately, it does not work, but I'm just imagining what a craftsman like this could do with the designs I intend to publish!