Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Is Over-balancing a Side-effect of some other Principle?

Having spent the last 50 years or so trying to discover Bessler's secret I realised some time back, that the solution must be something really simple, but not at all intuitive - not intuitive until you know but then instantly obvious.  It took Bessler about ten years to find the beginnings of an answer and even then, some very intense work to finally get a movement which proved to himself that he had found the correct principle.

The brief motion he discovered was so convincing that he dropped everything and went out into the world to earn some much needed funds to finance the building of a demonstration wheel and a place to show it.  He also persuaded a town mayor and physician of somewhat dubious political standing to allow him to take his daughter in marriage and accept her dowry.  This action sounds like a plan he had devised if and when the wheel worked.  To me this adds support to the idea that simply finding that basic principle and then deducing how to use it provides enough evidence that full test rigs and lengthy runs loaded and unloaded are unnecessary to prove the point, to ones self. But  I realise of course,  that such tests are a vital ingredient for anyone in the enviable position of having got to that penultimate stage that Bessler achieved prior to his search for funding.  You can only actually prove your wheel works by demonstrating it in action.

So first we have to find that simple concept which was so obvious that when Bessler discovered it he was encouraged to attack the problem with renewed enthusiasm.  I think that this concept was unarguably a vital part of the wheel's design. But Bessler admits that it took immense effort to find a way of making use of this principle, which suggests that even though the answer is perfectly logical it requires some considerable mechanical arranging to discover a way of utilising said principle. In my opinion this kind of trial and error method is an ideal way to hit upon the correct mechanical arrangement once you have the principle that allows the wheel to be driven in the presence of gravity.

This principle which I believe Bessler discovered must obviously be the light at the end of an extremely long tunnel, and yet even once discovered would take lengthy experimentation to find the correct mechanical arrangement to make it work.  Such a principle rules out the simple over-balancing wheel, according to Bessler, and yet an over-balancing ingredient seems to be implied in Bessler's description, although couched in the most ambiguous of terms.  It seems that action due to the operation of the prime principle leads to an overbalancing situation but the latter is more of a side effect than the primary cause of continuous rotation.  It is as though we have omitted a step in trying to generate continuous rotation through seeking to cause over-balancing, when we should be looking for some additional feature which then leads to overbalancing.

JC

66 comments:

  1. The design I have found is, indeed, very simple and upon viewing it my readers will probably say "That's it?!". However, the key to making it work is the precise way in which the weighted levers are connected to each other and counter balanced by stretched springs of specific tensions. Without those, the design, as nearly 1500 attempts graphically showed me, is completely unworkable. But, when all of the parameter values are right, true magic will happen and one will have a collection of weighted levers that does keep its center of gravity on the descending side of the axle during wheel rotation. Notice that I wrote "...of the axle"? That's because the center of gravity of the weighted levers within a one-direction wheel was so close to the center of the axle that it was actually located inside of the axle's outer cylindrical surface!

    Above you seem to be suggesting that Bessler only married the daughter of the town's physician because he wanted her dowry to finance wheel construction. I suspect, however, that it went far beyond that and he was actually deeply in love with her. Of course, having some extra money to start one's marriage off never hurts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Ken, the actual story is far more romantic than I may have given the impression. I will tell the story on a future blog, but suffice to say it includes infanticide, black magic, political corruption, imprisonment, witchcraft, blackmail, secret liaisons, hallucination due poison ... and of course the few details you already know about,

      JC

      Delete
    2. Well shoot. Forget the wheel, I think we have the next hit television series on our hands.

      Delete
    3. Television? I'm looking forward to seeing a major motion picture with some top actors in it!

      Delete
  2. Good read, John. Seems to fit what I'm looking for. It's a principle not really obvious to support the goal. We're looking for 'old classics' countless times to run into the same mistake again and again. And almost every new PM-seeker does this also. The principle to make it work is incredible simple but the imagination and the belief for its realization is not. And because of the latter, IMO, we don't have a working gravity wheel until today.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We can infer that OB was some kind of epiphenomenon from Bessler's outright dismissal of its potential as a solution, despite his descriptions of his weights alternating inner and outer positions, with the machine being heavy and full on one side, & empty and light on the other etc.

    The one-way wheels that remained under static torque would seem to eliminate the possibility that the cause of OB is a dynamic effect - it must be caused by real mass attempting to get lower..

    But mass and gravity are constant and thus so's the energy required to relift that mass.

    What bugs me most is the underbalanced weight in that static Gera wheel - since that's the real trick; getting a weight to overbalance is trivial, getting it to underbalance afterwards is the chewy bit..

    So presumably, when tied off stationary, whatever magic responsible for causing the underbalance must've already happened before the machine stopped? Or else it would've need priming with an additional store of PE.

    Unless, that is, the initial output of OB GPE alone is sufficient to power a subsequent underbalance.. I know Jim's suggested he think's this is possible, although i have my doubts..

    It's a thought-provoking issue tho.. whatever's responsible for freely raising the GPE, is the true source of energy. It only looks like a gravity wheel - and to be fair the resemblence is more than superficial - however gravity is just the 'medium of expression' so to speak - the puppet, rather than the puppeteer..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many students of Bessler have for many centuries been led astray by that line "heavy and full on one side, empty and light on the other" and think it means that all or just most of the weights in the drum stayed exclusively on one side of the axle. No way! Actually, this line is only accurate as to its description of the location of the center of gravity of all of the weighted levers within the drum is concerned. That center did, indeed, remain on the descending side of the drum at all times in a one-directional wheel, but the actual number of weighted levers inside of the drum on each side of its axle was always the same (i.e., 4) at all times.

      As a drum rotated, the center of gravity of the weighted levers would, of course, try to drop in order for the wheel to accelerate or for its axle to perform any outside work. But, something most extraordinary was simultaneously happening inside of the drum to keep raising the height of the sinking center of gravity so that it stayed elevated on the drum's descending side instead of dropping to a position directly below the axle, the "punctum quietus", as happened in everyone else's failed designs (and, sadly, is still happening three hundred years later!). What was that extraordinary something? Ahhh, that is the true secret of Bessler's wheels, his alluded to "prime mover", and one I will be elaborating upon in much greater detail in the coming year! Suffice it to say here that it involves a very simple, yet ingenious method of continuously recovering ordinarily lost GPE from one section of the drum and reusing it elsewhere within the drum so that sustained imbalance can be achieved. When the answer is finally revealed, it will amaze and delight all and, after the initial verification simulations are completed and out of the way, it will be time to begin building. Keep your tools ready and sharpened you "splendid mechanics" out there!

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. How is this redirected GPE "ordinarily lost"? Surely, if it's meaningfully GPE, then it is converted to KE by being lowered.

    It would be 'lost' if it were not to be lowered, but then it wouldn't meaningfully be GPE in the first place.

    If it's real GPE then it's not lost, but converted to work.

    So the GPE you've redirected elsewhere implies a deficit wherever it's come from.

    This is fundamentally the same issue we have with JC's suggestion that OB is a side-effect of some other phenomenon - whatever this phenomenon responsible for raising the GPE, that is the real energy source, rather than the GPE it has paid for. So instead of an explanation, it's just passing the buck to some other undisclosed interaction that we know nothing about..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The GPE that is "ordinarily lost" is that of the weighted levers inside of the ascending side of a wheel's drum. Ordinarily, as they swing in toward the axle in other inventors' wheels, they hit stops and their lost GPE is transformed into heat, sound, and vibration. A total waste which, if recovered as happened in Bessler's working design, makes the difference between success and failure. In Bessler's design, the weighted levers do not hit stops on the drum's ascending side. They do, however, hit stops on the descending side, but, when they do, they make a very gently contact. Bessler tells us that his wheels were "greedy" which was his way of saying that they were highly efficient in terms of managing their internal flow of energy and mass. Little was wasted. Wasted GPE = failure when it comes of overbalanced wheels. Whenever one sees a design which has weights that will swing about wildly during wheel rotation, that is a sure sign that it will not work! In the approach I use to rationalizing the hidden power source or "prime mover" in Bessler's wheels, it was always just the energy of the mass of the weighted levers. The scientists of the early 18th century had no idea that energy and mass were the same thing. Indeed, even now in the early 21st century many are still having trouble wrapping their minds around this simple, although somewhat paradoxical concept. But, it is 100% true and, in fact, if it wasn't, then most of modern physical theory would collapse! Bessler was centuries ahead of his time and he really did not know the reason why other than he just had a wheel design that worked while everyone else had a delusion or a hoax. For his time, he was, literally, the "King of the World of Perpetual Motion" and, like all kings, he wanted to have the wealth that went along with such a lofty title. That final proof of his earned title was denied him, but, soon, his right to the title will be restored!

      Delete
  5. The weights on the ascending side are an input of GPE, not an output - ie. they're ascending, not descending.

    The weights will 'fall inwards' while being raised if this minimises the distance they're raised upwards - in which case, we're no longer inputting the full compliment of GPE to them, that we want to get back out from their descent.

    So i think i'd describe your concept as redirecting input GPE, from the ascending side, to the descending side, rather than the output GPE. You're basically using the ascending weights to lever up the descending ones..?

    This in itself doesn't appear to challenge input / output energy symmetry. You've got invariant masses going up and down either side of an axle, in a uniform gravity field, so there is no apparent energy gradient available.

    Over-unity requires changing the spatiotemporal dimensions of the energy between input and output strokes. Or, more specifically, manipulating the field parameters that the input / output energies are dependent upon - the lowest-hanging fruit of which seems to be angular inertia, velocity, and the effects of their variable distribution upon KE.

    I know that sounds like complete word-salad.. which is a real pity, as it's basically the bottom line..

    While there's always the chance of 'happy accident', and 'you gotta be in it to win it', it is mathematically impossible to derive an input / output disunity from time-invariant gravitational and inertial interactions. So you cannot deliberately, knowingly 'invent' or design an OU interaction by such means, and even if you should happen accross one regardless, you'll never be able to explain or understand it properly by those terms.

    An energy excess can't even be theoretically ring-fenced in terms of invariant forces - it has to be swindled by changing the terms of momentum-to-energy exchange rates, inbetween input and output halves of an interaction.

    I suspect Bessler's anecdotes about "treasure hunting" are as much allegorical with regards to those seeking OU from gravity wheels, as literal biography..

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The weights on the ascending side are an input of GPE, not an output - ie. they're ascending, not descending."

    If the ascending side weighted levers in a clockwise rotating drum were not swinging counterclockwise about their pivots which were attached to the drum's framework, one could think of their increase in GPE being "paid for" by a similar decrease in GPE of the drum's descending side weighted levers. However, the ascending side weighted levers in one of Bessler's clockwise turning, one-directional wheels were always in counterclockwise rotation about their pivots from the drum's 6:00 to 9:00 positions. Thus, these weighted levers constantly lost GPE during that segment of a drum's clockwise rotation. In all designs other than the one Bessler used, that lost GPE was wasted producing heat, noise, and vibration. Bessler found a way to temporarily and very efficiently store it for later use in other parts of the drum where it served to continuously lift the sinking center of gravity of the eight weighted lever's of a clockwise rotating one-directional wheel so that it always remained on the descending side of the drum during rotation and could continually provide torque. His design was simple and elegant, yet mechanically advanced and very precise as to the parameters of its various components. By a true miracle, I finally managed to find those components' precise parameter values for all of the wheels Bessler actually built or planned to build. Soon all shall be revealed.

    I think Bessler actually did try treasure hunting at one point in his youth. People back then were just as fascinated by "get rich quick schemes" as they are today. At any time in Europe there were probably a half dozen different stories in circulation about vast treasures that were lost and just waiting for some smart person to track them down and use a shovel to unearth them (Dumas' classic novel, "The Count of Monte Cristo", used the finding of just such a treasure as an important element in its plot). Bessler, with plans to eventually found his own church and a religious school devoted to teaching various crafts, realized he would need money, an enormous amount, to make his dreams come through. Wandering about Europe he would have gotten involved in one, maybe more, treasure hunts and, finally, become disillusioned by it all when he realized that practically all of these alleged treasures were just imaginary and one would have about as much luck in finding one of them as he would in finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow! Today's treasure hunters tend to confine their searches to their state's weekly lottery games which involve far less effort and personal risk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A weight can only fall downwards after being lifted upwards.

      The GPE of the lever falling from 9 to 6 had to be raised to 9 in the first place.

      So you're inputting GPE by raising the weight, and/or its lever and fulcrum, and then outputting that GPE by letting it swing inwards and downwards again..

      Delete
    2. I think you are misinterpreting the mechanics I'm describing for Bessler's one-directional wheels because, obviously, an illustration would make things clearer. Basically, in a clockwise rotating, one-directional wheel, a weighted lever swings inward toward the axle as its pivot moves from the drum's 6:00 to 9:00 positions. Although the entire weighted lever is rising which requires an input of GPE, the swinging motion about the pivot simultaneously lowers the GPE so that the net effect is that the weighted lever does not gain as much GPE as it should. The GPE it does not gain is not lost by the production of heat, sound, or vibration, though, but, rather, is stored in a suspension spring. Then, after the weighted levers pass the drum's 9:00 position, they experience a sudden swing outward away from the axle as all of the springs ahead of them release their energy to raise the weighted lever by making it rotate around its pivot. The result of this is that the center of gravity of all of the weights stays on the descending side of the axle because it rises as the exact same rate that the rotating wheel is trying to make it drop. The action of the weighted levers is continuous and smooth. It is truly an amazing thing to watch as the weighted levers passing the drum's 9:00 position rapidly climb almost perfectly vertically for a fraction of a second, one after another.

      Delete
    3. LOL i wish you every success of course, i'm just not seeing things in quite the same way - you're converting GPE to sprung PE, which is a workload. If all of that GPE made it into the spring, the resistance to rising (ie. the effective balance) is identical to that of the weight lever remaining locked, with none of the GPE going into the spring; if only half of that GPE was put into the spring, then the other half still needs raising, and so on..

      It sounds ingenious and doubtless may coast for a while, not least due to the sprung PE seemingly re-invigorating the RKE even when the system is rotating so slowly it might otherwise be expected to halt.

      The bottom line however is that you have constant masses rising and falling a constant distance in a constant gravity field, and so from these elements alone, no input / output asymmetry is possible. If your system IS generating energy, it's evidently due to some other, transient, forces..

      Delete
    4. Another way to think of Bessler's imbalanced pm wheel mechanics is to view them as a sort of system of interconnected and counter balanced weighted levers that have a center of gravity that is located on the descending side of the axle and that is the place it naturally wants to be. Of course, since it is not under the axle at the "punctum quietus" that displacement then causes the drum containing the weighted levers, their connecting cords, and their suspension springs to beginning rotating. That's when the magic happens. That rotation tries to force the center of gravity out of its preferred location and the mechanics inside of the drum responded by, literally, allowing the center of gravity to sort of "tumble" right back to its preferred location. As the rate of rotation of the drum increased, the rate at which the center of gravity of the drum's collection of weighted levers would tumble back to its preferred location on the descending side would also increase. One must stop worrying about the distances through which the weighted levers rose and fell during a complete drum rotation because those distance were always the same. What was not the same was the average rate at which the weighted levers on the drum's descending side dropped as compared to the average rate at which they rose on the ascending side. Bessler's unique design allowed the descending side weighted levers to drop at a slightly faster rate than the ascending side ones rose and it was that slight discrepancy which constantly drained the mass energy of the weighted levers during each complete drum rotation and made it available, through the axle, to perform outside work. Fully understanding the details of Bessler secret imbalanced pm wheel mechanics requires us to embrace new concepts about how machinery can work. Despite this, however, his wheels did not violate any of the then or now known laws of physics.

      Delete
  7. How about the wheel turning by a double over-balance?
    A while ago I was experimenting with the idea of using a single beam device, a fixed weight at one end, and at the other, a 135deg. segment of a circle, it pivoted at the "point", so a tilt towards the hub would make the fixed weight end heavier.
    Then a tilt towards the rim would make the moving weight end heavier.
    If the moving weight is slung under the beam, it would only need to be flipped at the 12 O'clock position.
    The problem I had was getting it to flip, well now I have an idea that would cause it to flip by over-balancing.
    So over-balancing the segment, causes a secondary over-balance in the wheel.
    Hope this makes sense, this all came about by trying to MECHANICALLY replicate the action of the device shown on the video at....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdSU4H9RbEQ

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting heading John "Is Over-balancing a Side-effect of some other Principle?" as I recall once seeing "Is Over-balancing a Side-effect of geometry?" was long time ago, I followed the link and as best I recall it was some dry math or physics type tome I either didnt understand/didnt think relevant. Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My own thoughts are far less 'dry maths' anon, more simple engineering reactions.

      JC

      Delete
  9. Maybe Bessler wanted people to believe that he hid the true mechanism in codes and riddles when actually, the mechanism is in plane sight. Think about it. If I wanted to draw and build an idea that I was confident would work, I would also disguise my work so that only I could see with my discerning eye, how the idea really works without worrying about someone stealing my idea.

    Surely, there are many on this forum that would do the same thing. Isn't there? All you have to do is read some of Bessler's notes and then look at the pictures with a discerning eye, and you'll see that he drew "in plane sight" the mechanism which made his wheel's work.

    Interesting....Huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the same conclusion I came to years ago. Yes, Bessler did "hide" the details of his imbalanced pm wheel mechanics in plain sight. I spent much, much time analyzing all of the drawings in his works and, eventually, a chance discovery riveted my attention on the two DT frontispiece portraits. The internal details of his 3 foot diameter Gera prototype and 12 diameter, bidirectional Merseburg wheels were carefully encoded into the symbols and text of those portraits...but, one must know where to find and how to interpret them. I'm probably not the first to reach that conclusion. For example, look at that globe on the table to the left of the second portrait. Notice anything unusual about it? It's actually an important symbol that gives information about his wheels. What I've managed to uncover will totally amaze all when it's finally revealed.

      Update. Well, I have some good news to report just before the coming Christmas holiday. Last night I "finished" my book on Bessler! I put that word in sarcastic quotes because it's certainly not ready for submission yet. At this point it's like a rough cut diamond awaiting its final faceting and polishing to maximize its sparkle. I will slack off a bit during the next week or so, but then will get to work on it after New Year's Day to edit the final text to remove typo's, math errors, etc. This will, at a minimum, take at least another month. So far, everything is on schedule!

      Delete
    2. While I don't know what you have found Ken so I don't know how legitimate it is, although obviously you are convinced it's real, my own research into hidden information has found something absolutely unrelated to the scant information you have shared so far. But I await with bated brreath for more information.

      JC

      Delete
    3. As they say, John, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." The probability of the many DT portrait clues I've found being all delusional and yet still leading to a working sim followed by a working wheel is probably so close to zero that we can assume it is zero! I've been somewhat vague about the clues because, aside from the sheer number of them, I want to make sure there will be no doubt as to my historical priority in being the first to locate and properly analyze them. Every Bessler type pm chaser out there should get ready for the surprise of his life!

      Delete
  10. Ken's Book title, What I see in inkblots?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, selecting the book's title was a challenge. I wanted something that would grab people's attention and I finally found it. Also, don't make the mistake, as countless others before you have, of assuming that the various engraving / printing "errors" in the two DT portraits are just accidental. No, quite the contrary, every single anomaly in the portraits was purposely put into them by Bessler and intended to draw the reverse engineering analyst's attention to certain parts of the portraits for a specific reason. When I think of the work he must have put into these two portraits, it's almost as amazing to me as the operational imbalanced pm wheel design he found!

      Right now I have a manuscript that is, with illustrations, going to be about 500 pages in length and fully the last third of it will deal with the clues in the portraits. Some are childishly simple while others require one to use a clever alphanumeric coding system Bessler devised to find the various parameter values of the internal components of his wheels' imbalanced pm mechanics hidden in the portraits. There's even the year 1712 encoded into the second portrait to let the analyst familiar with the history of his wheels know that there's important construction information there about his first 3 foot diameter Gera prototype wheel which was the starting point of his success with pm. Anyway, this volume is intended to take Bessler research to the next level: the level where actual physical replication becomes virtually guaranteed. I will not claim, however, that it will be guaranteed because I am basing the volume on a working sim and not an actual physical prototype that I've constructed. But, I would not be releasing the material if I did not feel very confident that physical prototypes will, in time, be constructed from the information provided.

      Delete
  11. The only way we will ever know how Bessler made his wheel work, is to ask him when he comes back to life in a world that's 100% free of imperfect human governments, money hungry oil companies, and greedy politicians!!!

    Once all these are out of the way, it will be easy for the rest of the world to have free energy....FOREVER!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Through the DT portrait clues, Bessler, in effect, does come back to life to answer our questions about his secret imbalanced pm wheel mechanics. If he's up in Heaven now and watching us, then I think he will be happy to see that his hidden instructions were finally found, decoded, and resulted in the duplication of his wheels. When that is done, he will receive the long overdue vindication denied him during his earthly life.

      Delete
  12. On the other hand, I think Bessler's toy page is the answer to how his gravity wheel worked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are some important clues in the "Toys Page", especially those two alternating hammer men toys that dominate center of the page. As one hammer drops toward the anvil, the other flies up. On the ascending side of Bessler's one-directional wheels, the weighted levers approaching the drum's 9:00 position would swing their end weights down and closer to the axle while the weighted levers passing the drum's 9:00 position would rapidly swing their end weights away from the axle. That's the meaning of those hammer men toys in the Toys Page. Of course, the mechanics Bessler used looked nothing like the toys. His imbalanced pm mechanics depended upon a specially shaped lever in order to work.

      Delete
    2. If you have a different interpretation, John, I and I'm sure many others would like to hear it. Also note that the two hammer men toys are shown operating in opposite directions. This was Bessler's way of saying that his bidirectional wheels contained two sets of mechanisms that could each propel the wheel in a direction opposite to the one the other could propel it. Note that the bottom pair of hammer men have no arms and their clothing appears to be wrapped around their bodies. Very important symbolism once one realizes what his secret mechanics looked like!

      Delete
    3. Ken, I was neither agreeing with you nor disagreeing with you. My intention was simply to point out that you are still making statements as if they were established fact and not merely speculation.

      JC

      Delete
    4. I tend to state things as "facts" because I have been working with Bessler's imbalanced pm wheel mechanics now for several years and I've seen what it can do. I have moved far beyond the level of mere speculation although I will admit final 100% verification will not be achieved until what I've uncovered leads to the physical duplication of one of Bessler's wheels. Without that, any design submitted as being the one he used must be considered to be only speculation. More importantly, any design that is actually simulated or built which fails to duplicate the performance of his wheels can immediately be eliminated as erroneous. The sims I have indicate to me that this automatic elimination won't be happening for what I will be presenting. A new chapter in the Bessler historical saga will shortly begin! The 300th anniversary of the Kassel wheel will, indeed, be a very interesting one.

      Delete
    5. I don't think its a coincidence that Bessler includes a Roberval balance in MT near the Toy Page which also includes a mechanism that can easily be interpreted as a Roberval mechanism (the hammer men toy shown tilted to possibly hide the true purpose). Of course this is just my opinion amongst many different interpretations.

      Delete
    6. Bessler's wheels had centers of gravity that remained offset from the axle during rotation and, thus, represented a sort of "stabilized imbalance". Perhaps Bessler included the Roberval balance to demonstrate that its pans could be balanced or stabilized even though the weights in the pans could both be to one side of each pan so that their center of gravity was to one side of the midpoint of the two pans and, thus, imbalanced.

      Delete
  13. Well John, I have finally come to the conclusion that there is only five parts that make up the mechanism for Besler's overbalanced wheel, minus the lead weights. Like I said before, it was hidden in plain sight on the toy page.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been saying that I believe the wheel had five mechanisms for at least six years and that was just when I published my thoughts on www.besslerswheel.com

      In fact I have believed it for much longer.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I know you have, but I'm the type of person that wants to see how many ways something can be done. But in the case of Bessler's wheel, you only need 5 parts for the mechanism.

      I've looked at the many portraits of Bessler's mt drawings and I'm 100% convinced that there's only one that one that shows what the mechanism looks like and how it operates.

      I know Bessler said that no one could look at just one drawing and see how it worked. But, with a discerning eye, as he said, you might be able to find movement in one or them.

      Plus, when you add the weights and the springs and get all of that lined up in a circular pattern, then movement will occur. Of course, you've known all this for many years. In my case, whenever I think I've come up with something new, I find out that it was already thought of.

      Oh well, at least we're on the same page.

      Delete
    3. "...whenever I think I've come up with something new, I find out that it was already thought of."

      That sentiment has forced many a pm chaser to give up the chase and conclude that nothing can work. Some them will conclude that Bessler must have been a liar and hoaxer and others will think that he had to have something that worked, but it must have been very exotic and will never be found again. Thus, they view his inventions as permanently lost. Yet, he tells us himself that he found a working design where everyone else was looking. Well, everyone else was pursuing imbalanced wheel designs so there must have been something different about his imbalanced wheel design that allowed it to work. What could it have possibly been? The answer, imo, lies in the note to his MT 18 illustration which reads:

      "No. 18: This is the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. In the meantime, the principle should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place."

      The principle which "should not be disdained or entirely disregarded" is the use of springs to store the lost GPE of ascending side weights so that it could be used later to lift the weights back to the wheel's rim and thereby maintain the imbalance of the wheel to achieve pm. Bessler tells us that the application shown in MT 18 does not work (which suggests he actually constructed it or knew of someone who did), but that he will reveal more ways to apply this principle "at the appropriate place" which would have been the section of MT in which he finally reveals the secret design he found that actually did work. That design apparently relied upon the use of springs to work and they were used in a conventional imbalanced wheel design. So, we can see from this why he achieved success with his design while his contemporaries and predecessors got nowhere with their designs. Springs are the vital missing component. Even today, most pm chasers rarely if ever consider incorporating springs into their wheel designs and I think it's safe to say that is why they are not finding success. Springs allow lost and wasted GPE to be saved until it can be used where it makes a difference in achieving success.

      Delete
  14. No, all of you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not wrong to voice "our" opinions Mr. Anonymous. Even if we were wrong, at least we're working towards a solution unlike some people who don't try.

      Anonymous too.

      Delete
    2. Make sure you predicate your words with "In my opinion", otherwise you come across as just another idiot (like all the others on bw.com) making claims you cannot back up.

      example. "No, in my opinion, all of you are wrong." Now this is something we can work with and discuss.

      Delete
  15. i think ken right about besler use of springs. heres guy that make flywheel run with one spring!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3I2zeoUbzg


    boris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just another youtube scam. The energy required to depress the spring is equal to the energy the spring will impart back to the rotor.

      I love how he rotates the device in a circle so as to produce a subliminal notion that there is no connection between the device and table (or something beneath the table).

      Delete
    2. "The energy required to depress the spring is equal to the energy the spring will impart back to the rotor." Maybe not. The crank pin first contacts and then leaves the spring at different locations. This might be having an unsuspected effect that allows the spring to deliver more energy to the pin than is used to depress it. If so, there is only one place I can see that energy coming from which would be the mass of the spring itself.

      Yes, he does rotate the device several times, but the flywheel shaft can not be driven by a hidden pulley / cord system because the cord would be totally twisted up as he turns the device around. The only other option I see would be if one of the bearings was actually a motor. But, then he'd have to have some wiring which I don't see and which those cardboard thin bearing supports look too thin to contain. Also, past about minute 3:50, he has slid the device much forward from its starting position. If there was hidden wiring it would have to be pulled along under the rectangular base as he moves it around. Anyway, I remain very impressed by this little gadget, but will await its duplication by others. I'm even thinking of trying to construct one myself if I can find the time!

      Delete
    3. Yes I considered the variation in force on the flat spring. However, the force of deflection varies with distance from the anchor point as does the deflection distance, so you end up with something akin to the forces on a lever (further out - less force but more movement, closer in - more force but less movement).

      Delete
    4. I've never seen a mechanical mechanism like this before. Maybe when the spring kicks the crank pin up it applies greater force and does so for a bit longer than one might suppose which might somehow be due to the presence of the brass weight attached to the spring? I'm wondering if it can work without that brass weight. The inventor does not mention it, but I assume he lubricated the top surface of the spring to minimize wear and reduce energy wasting drag on the flywheel shaft.

      Delete
  16. It might be worth debating the principle behind MT18.

    http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_018.gif

    Sure the device utilizes springs, so are springs or spring tension necessarily the principle. Could it perhaps be the way or fact that the weights shift inwards on the ascending side. Or perhaps it is the way the weights are flung outward and forward on the ascending side. Perhaps it is the fact that the weights strike the stop on the rim as the wheel rotates. There are several effects occurring with this design as the wheel rotates. It would seem obvious to assume that springs are the answer, when in fact it could be a movement that the springs (in this design) produce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, ... flung outward and forward on the DESCENDING side ...

      Delete
  17. Has everyone given up on the notion that a pivoting object, producing more downward CF than its own weight (thus a net amount of energy), is the "or a" solution?

    The Milkovic two stage oscillator shows a movement that is the closest thing we have to seeing free energy creation, its just not obvious because of design inefficiencies. I am rather shocked that there is not more discussion on this, or perhaps this is what people are actually working on, but don't want to openly discuss for fear of directing people to the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you flip the hammer men toy upside down, you have two pivoting or swinging pendulums.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you John for your good works over these many years. We are all very excited for 2017. This year will finally see a running, mechanism that captures gravity and turns it into a usable rotary motion. I am so convinced that without your work, to allow all of us to peer into this intriguing riddle, it might have just disappeared from our attention. This tremendous and tedious task that you have chosen to pursue will finally bring a solution for our planet. I am so thankful for you, your leadership and patience with us all..... Merry Christmas to your house and all who enter is doors.

    For I am a Perpetuum Mobilist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well thank you Gravittea, for your very kind words and wishes. It is very much appreciated to get such positive comments from one of our band of merry men (and one woman as far as I can tell).

      I can assure you that we all, in 2017, are going to witness at last, a triumphant breakthrough in the search for a solution to Bessler's wheel. I know there have been optimistic forecats at the end of each years for goodness knows, how long, but this year of 2016 has been the year when progress was finally achieved, not with a working model yet, but with a revelation about how Bessler's wheel was able to do what it did without breaking any of the laws of physics.

      It is therefore with tremendous optimism and utter certainty that I can say 2017 will be the year.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Yes, thanks, John, for helping to keep interest in Bessler alive all of these years. Gould got the ball rolling, but your efforts have helped accelerate it greatly. This coming year, 2017, marks the 300th anniversary of the construction of the mighty Kassel wheel which was the most powerful Bessler constructed. We have to do something "big" to mark this occasion. I can feel the excitement beginning to escalate!

      Delete
    3. "It is therefore with ... utter certainty that I can say 2017 will be the year."

      There is no retracting from that statement John. I really wish you wouldn't have made it. I'm afraid this could end badly for you and tarnish your reputation.

      Delete
    4. Ken I have not been following all of your posts but not long ago you stated the BW would be nothing more than a novelty with no meaningful power to perform work. In your statement above you use "mighty" and "powerful" to describe the wheel. Have you changed your mind on the usefulness of the wheel?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous wrote: " In your statement above you use "mighty" and "powerful" to describe the wheel. Have you changed your mind on the usefulness of the wheel?"

      I've estimated a maximum startup power output for the Kassel wheel of only 50 watts. It's not much, but about double that of the Merseburg wheel and about five hundred times that of his 3 foot diameter tabletop Gera prototype wheel! So, compared to those it was "mighty" and "powerful". But his never constructed "super wheel" that would have been 40 feet in diameter and have carried weighted levers in excess of 700 pounds would truly have been "mighty" and "powerful" with an startup power output of about 6.67 kilowatts! That's enough to power a small home continuously. The problem, of course, was the size of the super wheel. However, possibly, one could design homes which could contain and conceal such a huge wheel. The bottom of the wheel's open metal frame drum would have to be contained in a below ground trench about 22 feet deep by, perhaps, 6 feet wide and the upper 20 feet of the drum could be completely contained inside of 6 feet apart double walls on one side of dwelling which would have no windows. With modern materials, one could dispense with using noisy chains to interconnect the weighted levers in favor of woven nylon belts that would be long lasting and virtually silent in operation. The super wheel would be directly connected to an AC generator whose output would be 120 vac for the home's electrical outlets. When no power was being used in the home, the super wheel hidden in its walls would be rotating continuously at about 10 rpm's. The wheel would be able to meet a maximum power demand of 6.67 kilowatts and, as it did so, its rotation rate would drop to near zero. If the electrical power demand exceed that figure, however, the huge wheel would simply stop running until the load on it was reduced. Yes, I believe Bessler's wheels could be adopted to power homes, but before that happens we will have to show that far smaller versions are working and reliably so. Next year will be a major step toward achieving that goal.

      Delete
    6. In the cold light of dawn, my statement of my utter certainty, looks a little rash, but I stand by it, I'm extremely optimistic that the solution will be known in 2017

      JC

      Delete
    7. Sounds like you are back peddling yet again John.

      Well at least you are optimistic about your utter certainty - only days away!

      Delete
  20. Hello John,

    Is your wheel completed, and did you test it yet? I know you say that your confident that it will work and that you have the answer to the most elusive question in human history, but have you actually tested it yet?



    ReplyDelete
  21. Hello John,

    Have you tested your wheel yet? I know that you say that you're confident that it will work, but have you actually rotated it to see if it continues?
    You say that 2017 will be the year that proves a gravity powered wheel it possible. But how can you make such an absolute, president comment without actually testing the wheel first?

    Many have tried throughout history to grasp and hold onto this most elusive question that has slipped through the most intelligent minds in history. Please, don't say: Be patient, or you'll just have to wait and see, or some other comment that eludes the question.

    Just tell us....Have you test your wheel to see if it rotates continually?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry for lack of response. Once I've posted new blog, I usually forget to check back on the previous one.

    Not tested yet. Too long to explain why, but I have no workshop at present due to house renovations.

    JC

    ReplyDelete

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...