Saturday, 31 December 2016

2017 - Happy New Year!

Confidence is high - I think in this coming year, things will be revealed which will prove that Johann Bessler deliberately left clues that will lead to the correct solution to reconstructing his wheel.

I will publish my own thoughts on what the important dream revealed to Bessler which galvanised his search for the solution.  I had my own revelation in 2016 and it is that I will share which I hope will lead to success either in my hands or someone else's.

I have had other revelations over the past years, some led to a dead end, others pointed the way but not the solution.  I know many of us have had breath-taking, astonishing revelations, some of which  it is believed, have remained as key steps towards victory and some have disappeared in the cold light of dawn - or reality has blown them away.

It never fails to amaze me how often, immediately following a hands-on experiment that demonstrates the faulty logic in its design, the human mind creates another design which seems even more promising than the recent failure.  Of course years of experience of such revelations generates extreme caution in the mind of the researcher leading to a more careful approach to publicising them - mostly!

The building work in our house is approaching the end and I am immersed in building a log cabin which will be my new workshop.  The garage which was the workshop has been reduced in size by about half to accommodate the kitchen dreams of my better half, but I am more than content with my new Bessler research centre!  It should be ready within a couple of weeks when I can return to the fray.

In my next post I will reveal in much abbreviated form some of the unknown parts of Bessler's life from just after his first realisation of his dream of Perpetual Motion up to his marriage to Barbara Schuhmann.

JC






63 comments:

  1. Yes, yes, yes! This coming year will certainly be a pivotal one in the history of Bessler research and, since it is the 300th anniversary of the construction of this most powerful wheel in Kassel, how could it be otherwise?

    I find that being frustrated in finding a particular route to achieving pm does tend to trigger one's brain into immediately seeking another approach. It's sort of like stepping into a mud bog. As one's foot begins to sink in one spot (symbolic of a failed test), he immediately places his other foot on another spot hoping it will support his weight (symbolic of searching for a modification to the design that will work). If (more like when!) his other foot also begins to sink in that new spot, he then places his first foot on yet another spot to try to keep his body from sinking (symbolic of continuing to try different wheel designs to find one that works). The goal, of course, is to be able to finally reach the other side of the mud bog without getting stuck in it (which is symbolic of finally finding a working pm design). Perhaps throughout human history only a few have ever made it to the other side of that metaphorical mud bog and found a design that works. It is truly an exhilarating experience to know, for a fact, that one has found something that no one else on Earth (and perhaps the entire galaxy!) has. To have something that all of the other great figures of history did not achieve despite their fame, fortune, or genius. I call this sublime state of mind "Full Bessler Awareness" and, on occasional, "Total Bessler Consciousness". I'm hoping to give everyone this epiphany in the coming year!

    Glad to read that your seemingly never ending house renovations are finally drawing to an end and you can get back to Bessler research. I've also begun proofreading my own massive tome devoted to Bessler. I want it to be a fitting tribute to the inventor and his wheels. So far, it's looking to be just that and the work is even a bit ahead of schedule. Hmmm...you spelled Bessler's wife's maiden name as Barbara "Schuhmann". Was that a typo? Isn't it supposed to be spelled "Schumann"?

    Anyway, Happy New Year Everyone! Expect much, much progress to be made in Bessler research this very year!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your excellent response Ken. Your vivid analogy of getting stuck in the mud was right on target.

      I confess I always thought It was spelled as Schumann , but revision of my copious notes on the subject confirmed that I was wrong and the correct spelling is Schuhmann. Schuhmann translate neatly into shoeman, otherwise known as cobbler.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that correction, John. I have changed the spelling of "Schumann" to "Schuhmann" wherever it appears in my text.

      Delete
  2. We will continue to "Watch this Space", as we have done for so long now, and into the future, and beyond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do I detect the merest hint of scepticism in your words Robert? I don't deny I've allowed my optimism to overcome my natural caution on occasion, but your words seem to be questioning my integrity, and I can assure you my intentions are strictly honourable. I do have some information to publish which I genuinely believe, will open up the whole subject.

      JC

      Delete
  3. Happy New Year to all!
    John: "It never fails to amaze me how often, immediately following a hands-on experiment that demonstrates the faulty logic in its design, the human mind creates another design which seems even more promising than the recent failure." Definitely true. No doubt, the mind has found the secret of how to move perpetually!
    Ken: "Perhaps throughout human history only a few have ever made it to the other side of that metaphorical mud bog and found a design that works." Do you think possible that other searchers could have built a working wheel and have kept it secret?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt it Michel. I don't know why they would spend time discovering the secret and then say nothing about it. I know there are people who fear the publicity, but information could be released anonymously if that was a factor in saying nothing.

      JC

      Delete
    2. @MG: Johann Bessler, gifted as he was, was not the only genius craftsman who ever lived. If mechanical pm boils down to just keeping the center of gravity of a collection of movable weights mounted on a rotating wheel on its descending side, then, most likely, human craftsmen have been trying to do that since the wheel was invented about 25 millennia ago. There appear to have been advanced societies in ancient India that go back to around 10,000 BC and earlier with kings living in splendid palaces. Kings get bored and need distractions of various types. They had a collections of wise men, craftsmen, players, and clowns to provide intellectual stimulation, jewelry, gadgets, toys, and entertainment. They would have learned about the possibility of building an ever turning wheel and perhaps been told how hard it was to do and how only a very few had ever achieved it. Any king would, like Count Karl, have been fascinated by the possibility and assigned one of his court craftsmen, like Bessler at Weissenstein Castle, the task of designing and constructing one. The motivation would have been the reward of a fabulous fortune in gold or other valuable commodities, much as Bessler hoped to obtain. So, off they would go using every possible mechanism they could conceive of to try to maintain the wheel's imbalance during rotation. The vast, vast majority of the efforts, as nowadays, would have ended in failure, but, along the way, all sorts of interesting things would have resulted. They would have learned all about gears and gear ratios, invented analog computers for predicting the positions of the heavenly bodies, human like automata that could move about and perform programmed tasks of various sorts. And every once or twice in a millennium perhaps, one of the designs would work and that lucky craftsman would be well rewarded for his efforts. His king would be delighted and all at court would get to see and test the marvelous wheel. Unfortunately, without an Industrial Revolution underway to supply the needs of the masses, such a "toy" would simply remain a curiosity that the king kept locked away in a special room of his palace. Then, as often happens in human history, a war would breakout and some enemy force would invade and ransack the king's palace. All gold and anything else of value would be carried off. Seeing the wheel in the sealed room they had broken into, the enemy soldiers might have considered it possessed by demons and just destroyed it along with the secret of its design. And so it went down through the millennia. The Bessler story is, essentially, no different. Only in his case, the enemy that destroyed his wheels was a combination of human greed and his own cynicism and paranoia. In his case, however, the secret has not been lost. He very carefully preserved it for future wheel builders to discover and, now, I can state with much confidence that those instructions, after three centuries, have been found! Bessler's design for an imbalanced pm wheel will not just be "lost to history" like so many others were. This new year of 2017 is, finally at long last, the year it will be revealed and the field of self-motive machinery will never be the same thereafter.

      Delete
    3. My research has taken me in the direction of three physical principles for a working gravity wheel. One direction leads to this. If the principle does indeed work, then there is the chance that Leonardo da Vinci actually discovered a form of gravity wheel. However, I believe that he may have hidden part of the solution, to avoid persecution by the Church.

      I am currently working on this principle in Autodesk Inventor, doing the three dimensional parametric model. Once finished, I'll move on to dynamic simulation, which will indicate whether or not the principle works. I doubt if stress analysis will be necessary.

      Even if it does work, there will be no way to verify a working wheel by da Vinci. It is only a suspicion that I have. A few of his devices are interesting.

      Happy New Year to all!

      Delete
    4. Sounds very interesting. Yes, Leonardo was also bitten by the pm bug for a while, but it is generally thought that he got nowhere with his rolling metal ball wheels. I've always wondered, however, if the right ramp configuration might be able to keep the center of gravity of all of the balls on a wheel's descending side. Might be possible...

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Ken, for your deeply detailed arguing.

      Delete
    6. Unfortunately, until the invention of the calculus by Leibniz and Newton it wasn't possible to recognise that a pendulum adds 3rd derivative energy to the second derivative energy of a falling weight. It is this extra energy that the BW is harvesting as angular momentum.

      Ken. Could you do an old man a big favour by breaking up your long paragraphs into smaller ones. It makes them much easier to read.

      Delete
    7. @Frank Grimer You are very wise!

      Delete
    8. I've recently been able to see more clearly how a pendulum generate extra energy in in the Newtonian Gravity field.
      Below is a post from the BesslerWheel forum.


      [quote="cloud camper"]Forgot to mention it Frank, but your suggestion of the long and short pendulum was excellent and is the exact mechanism that creates energy in the child's swing.
      ...
      [/quote]
      There's more. The Milkovic is the boundary case of two pendulums. The weight end is simply a very long pendulum which is moving very slowly - for all practical purposes stationary. We have a BOGOFF situation.

      The important point to grasp is that a pendulum not only picks up [b]2nd[/b] order derivative energy from the gravitational wind streaming past the bob, but it also makes its own contribution of impulse energy - and as you know the dimensions of impulse energy are [b]Force[/b] multiplied by [b]time[/b]. Greendoor realised the potential of[b] Ft[/b]. I haven't seen him around recently.

      Where does the pendulum add this energy?

      At the pivot.

      As the pendulum passes through its nadir the pivot experiences an extra downward force from the pendulum and an upward force from the structure supporting the pendulum. It is this upward force which is the [b]F [/b]of the impulse.

      Think of it as a stationary lift of the pendulum. Stationary to us because we view it from the wrong datum.

      The [b]2nd[/b] order derivative together with the [b]Ft[/b] impulse make up the [b]3rd[/b] derivative energy. This is transferred to the long pendulum where it grows to its full height and the crop is handed back to the pendulum in the form of extra angular momentum. The cycle the repeats.


      http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=149993#149993

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. I am sure that if John can limit himself to one paragraph on his blog then surely others can do the same.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, that is asking too much of KB......there is no known cure!

      Delete
    3. Ken!!!!! Please write in brief. Too much prose is just too boring.

      JC

      Delete
    4. I must beg a thousand pardons once again, John, but MG's question, "Do you think possible that other searchers could have built a working wheel and have kept it secret?", triggered me to give an answer that I thought summed up the situation accurately. I'm not convinced that Bessler's approach is the only way to achieve pm. That would be like saying there is only one way to design an internal combustion engine! Also, Bessler's approach is not necessarily the simplest way to do it. I was very impressed by that "Dominant Flywheel" that Boris posted a link to and am convinced that it is real and even has the advantage, unlike Bessler's wheels, of operating in any orientation and without the need for a gravity field! Something tells me we will be hearing more about it in the future.

      Delete
    5. You are saying that Bessler only invented one type of perpetual motion machine! Are you aware that it is well documented that Bessler invented many things during his life?

      Delete
    6. Ken, without casting doubts on the content or your writing style, I fear you may need to revise the length of your mighty tome downwards. You do seem to enjoy a certain over abundance of loquacity! (Or logorrhoea).

      I mention this in the kindest way because I speak from experience. My first book about Bessler was accepted by Bloomsbury Publishing but on condition that I halved the length of it without losing any of the content. I did it but it is a really difficult task. Unfortunately Bloomsbury were taken over and their 'list' cancelled so the book never got published except y me. But this requirement to reduce the length of non-fiction books is a standard requirement among publishers because the cost of print is a major part of their production costs and something they can control.

      But perhaps you are considering going the digital route, in which case there is no problem, but I still urge you to try to write in a more concise style, even though you may have to lose some of your finer pieces of prose!

      JC

      Delete
    7. What about putting a 30 word limit per blog and a one blog limit per day! JMO. LOL.

      Delete
    8. I'd rather let people feel free to write as they like, I just need to curb the over-enthusiastics who write at great length.

      Having said that, my next blog looks quite long but then it is my blog!

      JC

      Delete
    9. Ban him John!!

      Delete
    10. Anonymous on January 3 this year advises most wisely thus:

      "Ban him John!!"

      What are we to make of this? Just another idle protest against windbaggery that simply does not know when it might be best to stop or why?

      At what point might the justly-vaunted, saintly editorial tolerance cease finally, and give-in to the inevitable reality that some humans, like tigers, do not change their spots???

      In that last wing-ding spate of 'look at ME! Am I NOT simply past-brilliant?' there was no paragraphing to be seen.

      Why not?

      Paragraphs have purpose, being not nothing but, one gigantic text block, it was!

      How MUCH more of this?

      For mercies sake, when is The End of Endurance to FINALLY have it's overdue day, we onlookers being relieved thereby of an omnipresent, monstrous and utterly CLUELESS, cheeky overbearance?

      James

      Delete
    11. As I said in a comment above. I think Ken's prose would be easier to read if he broke up those huge chunks of text into smaller paragraphs.

      Personally I like his stuff and feel he was hard done by when he was hounded out of the main BesslerWheel forums all those years ago. I was glad to find that he has a new home here.

      As regards the "DOMINANT FLYWHEEL", I too think there is a strong possibility it is genuine and have offered to buy it from him. I won't repeat my recent comments here. You can read them by going to the YouTube site.

      Delete
    12. I've only just read Prime's reply above in which he also complains about slabs of text. One way to control this problem is to introduce a limit on the length of a post and a limit on the length of a paragraph. That would concentrate the mind. Also, people shouldn't be banned except for flagrant breaches. If suspension is good enough for MPs, it's good enough for us.

      Delete
    13. Frank, you wrote above ". . . when he was hounded out of the main BesslerWheel forums all those years ago."

      Of course I cannot speak for him but, I think he has before and will yet again deny that this in-fact ever happened, instead insisting that it was he who left voluntarily.

      Really, given the well known cause-and-effect aspect of the case, this would be a distinction possessing-of no tangible difference, obviously.

      The characteristics of it, which I noted before, above, were there noticed by others back then, the resultant pressure mounting to a extemt becoming intolerable to him, seemingly, with the famous known result to follow.

      This identical pattern complete with all of it's features of auto-mania, as it has unmistakably, has now manifested and taken deep-root HERE.

      Self-control and wise management of impulse seems not his forte.

      In-sum it is sad that it is so; so much book-learnt talent wasted, as frittered in chunks of boorish self aggrandizement.

      It, what I have presented here as a case, is not in any way a matter of whether, but rather is one only of how long it will be tolerated by our saintly-patient Editor. (As to what duration this might prove ultimately, even Criswell himself likely could not have predicted.)

      I really do hate having to be horrid but, ordinary patience does have it's limits and, with regard to our subject-of-present, mine got exhausted long ago, only amusement occasionally coming to a brief rescue for a laugh.

      Regards,

      James

      Delete
  5. Ok John sorry, just trying to help!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just curb your desires to read what KB has to say.
    Criticism of his length is like saying publicly, "That nude beach has to go!" Then proceeding to focus your binoculars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take your point, Robert, but I feel I should try to read all comments as it's my blog and people have taken the trouble to write a comment.

      There are several pithy sayings about the power of brevity, I like this one: by Friedrich Nietzsche,
      "It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.”

      JC

      Delete
    2. I was referring more to the complainers on here and BW, that you have to placate every now and then.

      Delete
    3. "...is like saying publicly, "That nude beach has to go!" Then proceeding to focus your binoculars." Lol! Yes, the world is full of hypocrites like the pm chasers who can't wait for the secret of Bessler's wheels to be found...just so long as it happens to agree with their particular pet theory for how they worked! I guess it is understandable, though. No one wants to have to admit they were wrong after spending so much time emotionally and even financially invested in a particular approach.

      Delete
  7. Hi to John and everyone on Johns Blog,
    There's seams to be a lot of talk about Bessler's wheel coming to life in this next coming year and I'm puzzled on how it actually starts to rotate. According to John and Ken it starts spontaneously, which I myself find difficult to believe. Some sites on the net etc report it needed a slight push to get it going, and I'm talking about the one direction wheel, is it possible Ken or John your wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only Bessler's one-directional wheels were spontaneously self-starting. His two 12 foot diameter, bidirectional wheels, the Merseburg and Kassel wheels, required a push in either direction to start them turning. You have to imagine his bidirectional wheels as actually containing two side by side one-directional wheels each of which was trying to make the composite wheel turn in the direction opposite to that of the other one-directional wheel. The opposed torques then cancelled each other out and prevented a bidirectional wheel from turning and being spontaneously self-starting. When such a wheel is given a push in either direction, however, the one-directional wheel undergoing retrograde rotation would be disabled and would no longer provide any torque to the composite wheel. That disabled wheel then became a passive flywheel while the one-directional wheel turning in its intended direction was powering the entire composite wheel. Hope this clears up the matter for you.

      Delete
    2. I am sorry Ken, there would not be enough space for two dedicated mechanisms. Much more likely the two directional wheel were symetrical in action so they could turn both ways.

      Delete
    3. Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about that. When Bessler went from the 9 diameter, one-directional Draschwitz wheel to the 12 foot diameter bidirectional Merseburg wheel, he only increased the drum diameter by a third, but doubled the drum's thickness from 6 to 12 inches. That doubling of thickness was, obviously, intended to provide the extra space inside of the drum for an additional one-directional wheel.

      Delete
  8. I see your logic but it has been my experience that one way wheels tend to resist reverse direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ordinarily, they will. But the one-directional wheel undergoing retrograde rotation in Bessler's bidirectional wheels did something very unusual and did it automatically. They were, upon being forced to rotate contrary to their "normal" direction of motion, able to lock up all of their weighted levers so that the length of a lever arm carrying a weight at its end was in perfect alignment with one of the drum's radial frame pieces. Once that happened for all 8 of the weighted levers inside of a one-directional wheel, the center of gravity of all of the weighed levers was "pulled" right to the center of the axle and that locked up wheel was no longer contributing any counter torque to the rotation being provided by the other unlocked up one-directional wheel. How this little trick was achieved is the subject of an entire chapter in my soon coming book!

      Delete
    2. I agree with Ken, the two-way wheels had two sets of mechanisms inside, one a mirror image of the other. When considering the options it's always best to assume the simplest method. Designing a separate system requiring a different mechanical design would seem to be more complicated than simply considering what might happen with two opposing systems as described.

      JC

      Delete
  9. Ok I concede, but only until I prove otherwise with a working wheel!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a few more days now ......

      Delete
  10. Thanks Ken for your true opinion, like you and John I agree about reversing the mechanics for the two way rotation, but not sure about how the one way starts ? I'm simply trying to understand exactly how the one way wheel could spontaneously move, this I believe is a very important point of Bessler's history on true facts, wouldn't you agree John.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can conceive a wheel with no punctum quietis, with no balance in any position, then why would it rest, even in the initial position ?

      Delete
    2. Actually, the 8 weighted levers inside of one of Bessler's one-directional wheels did have a "punctum quietus" (which means "stopping point" in English). What was unique about it compared to everyone else's failed imbalanced pm wheel designs was that it was not located directly vertically under the center of the axle and that was what allowed his wheels to develop an accelerating torque. Maybe we should say that Bessler's wheels' weighted levers always had and maintained a "punctum non quietus" (meaning a "not stopping point" or "punctum motus" (meaning a "point of motion") on their drums' descending sides?!

      Delete
  11. There is of course another factor to consider with the mirror image theory and that is; there would have had to be 16 weights instead of eight and that would have made the wheel extremely heavy. I think using the same weights twice and just changing the timing is far more practical.JMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You assume eight weights Trevor, maybe the mirror image weights don't make much noise, maybe there aren't eight weights anyway, perhaps Bessler deliberately misled us. I have always maintained that there were five mechanisms, but who knows how many weights were attached to each mechanisms!

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, you was in agreement with Ken regarding the two way wheel, but you never actually mentioned if Bessler's one way wheel started spontaneously or do you think that it could have also been misleading

      Delete
    3. Hmm, love this honest open minded dialogue.

      Delete
    4. Yes, while a one-directional wheel contained a total of 8 weighted levers, the bidirectional wheel would require a total of 16 for the two one-directional wheels it contained along with various other structures critical to operation of a bidirectional wheel. My best current estimates give the Merseburg wheel's drum (along with its internal mechanics) and axle a gross weight of 400 lbs. and the mighty Kassel wheel one of 800 pounds. The volume of the Merseburg wheel's axle and drum was about 118 cubic feet. With a gross weight of 400 lbs., that works out to an average density of about 400 lbs. / 118 cubic feet = 3.39 lbs. / cubic foot. The volume of the Kassel wheel's axle and drum was about 170 cubic feet. With a gross weight of 800 lbs., that works out to an average of density of about 800 lbs. / 170 cubic feet = 4.7 lbs. / cubic foot. Considering that the density of solid oak is about 45 lbs. / cubic foot, we see that, relatively speaking, Bessler's wheels were rather light.

      Delete
    5. Above statement about the number of weights is Ken's opinion not necessarily fact! However it was stated several times by Bessler and witnesses that the one-way wheel started to spin spontaneously as soon as a brake was released. From a standstill they accelerated up to maximum speed.

      JC

      Delete
    6. Thanks John for your honesty regarding how you believed our Orffyreus Bessler's wheels worked.

      Delete
    7. John, are we not straying from the priorities here. We no longer need a bi-directional wheel that dispels the belief that it was powered by a spring.
      Surely then it is better to consolidate all the power in one direction providing double the power/weight ratio.

      Delete
    8. @ John: If the design I've extracted from the DT portrait clues that uses 8 weighted levers leads to a working physical wheel, my "opinion" will be quickly be accepted as fact by most. There are also some very obvious clues in the second DT portrait that suggest 8 weighted levers were used. Why know one noticed them before is beyond me.

      @Trevor: You are exactly right. Bessler's bidirectional wheels were able to store twice as rotational kinetic energy at any rotation rate as compared to a same diameter one-directional wheel. But, half of their possible power output was wasted because the locked up one-directional wheel undergoing retrograde rotation that became a passive flywheel added nothing to a bidirectional wheel's power output. Bessler was obsessed with bidirectionality because he wanted to prove to witnesses that his wheels were not powered by clockwork mechanisms which could only turn in one direction. For example, if he had used two one-directional wheels inside of the Kassel wheel which were both turning in the same direction, he could have doubled its startup power output from about 50 watts to 100 watts. He could also have reduced the gross weight of the wheel by eliminating the system of gravity activated latches necessary to achieve bidirectionality. If we ever develop backward time travel, I intend to travel back in time to just before he constructed the Merseburg wheel and see if I can talk him out of building it. I'll give him some fairy tale about how I'm an angel sent from God to keep him from making a big blunder and maybe he'll believe that and change the design of the Merseburg wheel to make it a more powerful one-directional wheel.

      Delete
  12. The two most likely explanations for the halved running speed of the two-way design over the one-way system are:

    1) the backward-rotating mechanism was inert, at least in terms of being energy-neutral, but doubling the angular mass is doubling the MoI, and with only one mechansim working, dividing a given energy into double the inertia halves the RPM, quartering the output RKE.

    This seems the simplest explanation, and also offers one or two more clues by extension - we'd get this same result regardless of whether the PE was GPE or inertial, because RKE = 1/2 MoI * RPM^2, however this neat consistency between the one and two-way wheels implies whatever the form of workload, it's something that requires a constant amount of time - such as a drop or freefall of a weight. Whereas pulling a weight inwards could be performed at any speed.. unless it too was dependent upon gravity - a free or subsidised MoI reduction is automatically OU, remember..


    2) the other possibility is that the reversed mechanism was still active, and destroying energy. Of course it does not necessarily follow that the mechanism could or can be reversed simply by reversing the direction of rotation of the mechanism - perhaps the special sequence of actions can only be configured to work in one direction, as i think is more likely.

    However the possibility remains, and the halved running speed would then imply that the reversed mechanism was only destroying half as much as the other was creating - ie. +1 + -1 = 0, but +1 + -.5 = .5 - which would imply a force factor that was direction-dependent, consistent with a momentum difference between two reference frames (for instance rotating vs counter-rotating armatures at equal radius in a rotating system, wherein relative velocity is constant but intrinsic momentum is not).

    So the former would be most consistent with a GPE output, the latter with an inertial output workload.

    Occam would suggest the first option's warmer..

    Still, the fact remains that OU is intrisically and categorically not possible from gravitating systems alone. Therefore a reliance upon it means it was serving some other utility.. perhaps as some kind of change-up currency, or for the momentum varation between rising and falling, or specifically for its finite periodicity, rather than in spite of it, or else reversing the direction of a swung reaction mass, or something.. GPE loads must have some property advantageous to thwarting N3 - but only in conjunction with other inertial exchanges.

    As ever, the issue of what form the output energy took is fairly moot - the one-way wheels suggest an OB weight is most likely, but the real question is either: how does it fall with more energy than its GPE; or else, what raised it before it fell - when that 'descending' OB weight is perched in the stationary one-way wheel, where's its 'rising' companion and how'd it get there?

    ReplyDelete
  13. this guy make nice metal wheel. but only work with hands.

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


    boris

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks Vibe. The first option must be the correct one in my opinion. Consider Bessler's dilemma; how to convince people that his wheel was not driven by clockwork, as many suggested. The first idea and the one most easily tested was show that his wheel could turn in either direction. Trying to invent a complicated system such as option two would seem counter productive when he had the one-way wheel already proven and working. It must surely have occurred to him that adding another wheel to the same axle, but designed to turn the other way was at least worth a try.

    My own experiments many years ago, with two Savonius windmills on one axle proved the point as far as I was concerned. They performed exactly as Bessler's two-wheels did, needing a push to start and then only achieving half the speed of the two windmills when disconnected from each other.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trick to making a bidirectional wheel from two counterpoised one-directional wheels is figuring out how to make the retrograde rotating wheel turn into a flywheel with its center of gravity kept at the center of the wheel's axle. Actually, the method to do this is rather simple, but requires very precisely adjusted mechanisms. Such adjustments enough to give even a master craftsman like Bessler many a headache...

      Delete
    2. John, did you ever make a video of your experiment with the double Savonius windmill? I should like to see how this device is working...

      Delete
    3. I did make a video Michel, and also demonstrated it at a lecture I gave many years ago, which was also videod. Unfortunately they were both on VHS tapes and I have no idea where they are now, neither do I have a VHS player.

      It's one of those things I always intend to do - find the tapes, and somehow transcribe them to digital format and save. I will be in a better position to find them once this house alteration's finished. Remind me again in couple of months time if I haven't posted them.

      JC

      Delete
    4. Well, I think it will be opportune to convert them one day —or make another one, if it's not too hard— just to suggest an evidence about your bidirectional-wheel conception, when time comes to show your one-directional wheel. :-)

      Delete

Bessler’s Clues Here and on Besslerwheel forum

I’ve decided to go back to my original plan which was to share everything I’ve discovered and know, or believe about Bessler’s wheel.  It ha...