Saturday, 3 December 2016

One-way wheels and two-way wheels - the best way forward.

I thought it might be useful to rehearse my own thoughts here as I have not written about this subject for a long time, although it's in my mind constantly.

Bessler's largest wheel, the Kassel wheel, was approximately 12 feet in diameter, and 18 imches thick.  It turned at 26 RPM unloaded and 20 RPM when lifting a heavy box of stones.  It could turn in either direction if given a slight nudge in one direction or the other, after which it accelerated to its full speed in 2 to 3 turns.  This wheel's predecessor, the Merseberg wheel, was of a similar size but thinner at only a little over 11 inches thick.  It could turn at 40 RPM and was also able to turn in either direction.

These two wheels were designed and built to answer the accusation that the earlier ones were driven by clockwork.  The earlier ones were able to begin to spin immediately their brakes were released.  This fact suggests that they were in a permanent state of imbalance - or that a weight was always able to fall at the exact point that the wheel reached a balanced position thus continuing the imbalance.  In the Merseberg and Kassel wheels I visualise there being two sets of weights -  one for each direction, a kind of mirror image arrangement.  The two-directional wheels obviously would not turn without a nudge in one direction, because the weight which fell as soon as balance was reached was counteracted by the weight which fell into position to turn the wheel the other way.

Once the wheel was turning, howver, one of the weights would move backward and therefore have no positive effect on rotation, while the other continued the imbalancing process. That's the theory; of course designing an arrangement of weights which fulfills the theory and works is another matter.  

It seems clear that there were several variables which could be applied to the design of the wheel, which could make it turn faster or slower, using weights of varying size.  Bessler claims such in his Apologia Poetica, and his demonstrations seem to prove that.  The obvious variables include weights of different sizes and more or less of them; thinner and thicker wheels and large diameter wheels and potentially more mechanisms.

In my opinion the first one-way wheels hold the key to success, assuming that the internal mechanisms in the later ones were based on the earlier ones.  Although we know that the Kassel wheel produced about eight bangs on its falling side, we have no knowledge of how many noises accompanied the spinning of the earlier ones - just that a loud noise was produced.  I mention this because it might be wise to leave aside any assumption that there would need to be eight bangs to somehow include in the earlier more basic wheel.  Bessler implied that he was able to barely induce a wheel to turn with just one cross-bar inside it, which could mean one pair of weights operating within a single but complete mechanism.

So I, at least, continue to work on producing a one-way wheel, but with five mechanisms which I believe Bessler indicated, is the most that can be fitted into the wheel.  That indicates to me that the more mechanisms the better - and five seems to me to be the answer, or part of it.  So four would not produce as much torque as five and three even less.

Many people work on the theory that because there were about eight bangs on the side towards which the Kassel wheel turned, that fact can be assumed as relevant to the other wheels, but I believe that the earlier ones were simpler with less mechanisms inside and therefore fewer sources of noise.  Being of a simpler design they should be easier to replicate - why try to build a two-way wheel when a one-way wheel would prove the point.

JC

36 comments:

  1. John, I find myself in agreement with most of what you've written. Definitely, Bessler's two-directional wheels were just made from two one-directional wheels side by side inside of the bidirectional wheel's double thick drum which were mounted on their common axle so that their individual centers of gravity were located on opposite sides of a vertical line passing through the center of the axle. Their composite center of gravity was then directly under the center of the axle and no torque was produced to turn the axle. When such a bidirectional wheel was given a nudge in either direction, something amazing would happen. The one-directional wheel undergoing retrograde rotation (i.e., rotation in the direction opposite to the direction it would normally self-start in if solely mounted on an axle) would, after a complete rotation, have all of its weighted levers locked into position such that the center of gravity of that one-directional wheel was then located exactly at center of the axle. When that happened, that wheel was then converted into a passive flywheel and the drum was being solely propelled by the other one-directional wheel that was turning in the direction it was designed to self-start in. This required that each of the 16 weighted levers in a bidirectional wheel's two internal one-directional wheels be equipped with its own set of special gravity activated latches. Incredibly, I have been able to successfully reverse engineer the latch system Bessler used and have made several sims that show it works perfectly. Whichever wheel is forced to undergo retrograde rotation by a nudge of the drum in either direction will always have its weighted levers locked up and will become the flywheel while the unlocked up weighted levers of the other one-directional wheel provides all of the torque to the axle. The entire sequence of events is then reversed when the wheel is stopped and nudged to start its drum turning in the opposite direction.

    Unlike you, I am convinced that Bessler always used exactly 8 weighted levers in his one-directional wheels. I also believe that was the case for his first functional 3 foot diameter Gera prototype wheel which was a somewhat fragile toy that could just barely keep itself in motion and accelerate up to a speed in excess of about 60 rpm which is one rotation per second. In my forthcoming book, I provide the reader with a complete schematic of Bessler's 3 foot prototype wheel and highly recommend that anyone wanting to duplicate his wheels begin with that one so he can thoroughly familiarize himself with the coordinating cord layering system Bessler used. Once that prototype is constructed, like Bessler, he can proceed to construct larger versions and, if he's really up to a challenge, even take a crack at a bidirectional wheel. I provide schematics of the latches.

    What would really be cool would be if the government of Germany, once it is shown that Bessler was not a liar and a swindler, would allocate the money necessary so that one dozen 40 foot diameter super wheels could be constructed and used to power the cascade near where Weissenstein Castle used to be. Come to think about it, how about rebuilding the original castle and turning it into a museum dedicated to Bessler with reproductions of all of this wheels?! It could become the number one tourist destination in all of Europe!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi John,
    Is this your Bessler/Collins principle or another one of your Pet Theories?
    I wish you success but if no movement will you give it a little push to help it on it's way, or simply add a couple more mechanisms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I never discuss the principle, only the wheels in general terms. No little push necessary as the wheel should begin to spin as soon as the brake is released.

      JC

      Delete
  3. There seems to be a lot of theories as to how Bessler's wheels worked and what drove them. Instead of writing these lengthy discussions, why not add some visual drawings to accompany your discussions?

    I'm sure someone is going to come back and say: you have to use your minds eye to visualize what we're talking about. No no no! Just give us a glimpse of some drawing so that we can see what you're talking about.

    It's great that progress is being made but, pictures can stimulate our imagination better than words alone.

    That's just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no shortage of drawings or computer simulations (close to 1500 or the latter!). My book will contain 55 figures and 3 tables in it! It's a massive treatment of Bessler and his pm wheel mechanics and it's going to present my publisher with a real formatting challenge. I did consider uploading everything to my website (cosmicvault.tripod.com), but the volume's many figures really need to be supported by explanatory text and I've seen too much information just disappear from the web to trust putting it there. The detail of the information I've collected over the years demanded a book length treatment. That way, the book will be "in print" for generations to come and, hopefully, will stimulate research into not only Bessler's inventions, but self-motive machinery in general. I'm hoping it will be as influential as the works by Henry Dircks on pm machines though he was more of a skeptic than believer, imo. Many think that they know everything there is to know about the Bessler story and that is all they need to duplicate his wheels. What I intend to publish, however, will show them that they were just barely scratching the surface!

      Delete
    2. Ken, as usual you are trying to take advantage of my good nature - please desist from advertising your forthcoming book at every opportunity!

      I have held my tongue metaphorically speaking, so far, but I'm approaching the point where I will express my opinion about your book in a somewhat execrable style, which I'm sure neither of us would wish to happen.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Sorry to irritate you, John, and no need to get "execrable" about it. Lol! I'm sure by now you are receiving whining emails a plenty from those who have concluded that no one will ever find the secret of Bessler's wheels and quickly become impatient with anyone who dares suggests he might actually have done so. My advice to you is to ignore their inane rantings because they never contribute anything meaningful to the subject in general or to your blog in particular. It's just that I know what's coming down the road and it's filling me with an exuberance that's difficult to contain! Out of respect for you, however, I will try to restrain myself and stop giving out so many teaser details before publication which is something I've also been advised not to do by several others whose opinions I trust. Finally, after three long centuries of frustration and zero real progress in replication, a genuine path to a working wheel now exists! If you don't believe me now, then I completely understand. However, I am highly confident that, by the end of coming year, you and others will share my belief. The future of Bessler research is about to change in a very big way!

      Delete
    4. Ken, I just read your "Perpetual Motion Machines ARE Possible!" at your website here (http://cosmicvault.tripod.com/page06.html). Is this really your solution to the puzzle of Bessler's perpetual motion machine? I mean I can imagine the idea of what you are talking about, but I really have a hard time believing something like that would work. 8 levers hanging off the outer shell of the wheel, one end of each held with a spring? I know Bessler's concept is supposed to be simple, but I don't think it is THAT simple. And this statement makes no sense: "We see that with each rotation of the wheel a weight on its descending side will actually fall a GREATER distance than it will rise when it moves around the wheel's ascending side!" There is simply no way something can fall a greater distance than rise in a rotating wheel. If any weight falls, it must rise to make up that fall over and over. Over and over it must rise up to the same height it fell from, how could it be any other way??

      Delete
    5. @QS: That article on my website is about 14 years old and was written at the very beginning of my presence on the web. I should have removed it, but left it there because of the historical information in it. A revised version of it appears in my last book, "Essays from the Edge of Science" and, IIRC, it is mentioned there that it is a non-runner. When I actually built it, it did not work and no sims of it worked. Bessler, however, did find a way to make a novel variation of it work and, as you stated, the weights in his successful wheels do rise and fall through the same distance within the wheel with the same number of weights and levers on each side of the axle. However, in his wheels the weights on the ascending side are always a little closer to the axle than those on the descending side and rise vertically at a slightly slower rate than they fall on the descending side. His design also uses springs and weights attached to the ends of levers, but the levers must have a special shape and their individual rotations about their pivots inside of the drum during every 45 degrees of its rotation are very precisely coordinated by a system of cords that interconnect the levers. In each one-directional wheel a total of 40 cords is required and they are arranged into separate layers so they can not rub against each other during drum rotation. When I finally publish his design, people will be amazed that it is so simple, but that is an illusion because the actual mechanics is very precise and took him a years to invent.

      Delete
  4. I may agree with John here "In my opinion the first one-way wheels hold the key to success, assuming that the internal mechanisms in the later ones were based on the earlier ones...". From my tests and findings, there need to relocate, all mechanisms/pendulums one lever fixing point only, to make the wheel, to turn to other direction. But then, it will not rotate with so great speed, because the outer weights path is not so good then.
    Have not achieved to make this happen automatically, from pushing, jet...
    !inki-le!

    Eastlander

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Bessler's little 3 foot diameter Gera prototype was the first time he achieved sustained imbalance and rotation. Understand that wheel's mechanics and one will have everything he needs to know to build larger and more powerful editions. I can only imagine the exhilaration that Bessler felt when, after a decade of one failure after another, he first realized that wheel was actually working! Such moments tend to be few and far between in life. He probably spent the rest of the night fervently praying and thanking God for his success. I wish I could have been there to observe the event.

      Delete
    2. I don't know where you got the the idea that Bessler's first wheel was three feet in diameter Ken. He describes his first wheel as standing three and a half feet high.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Yes, the top of the drum of that first working Gera prototype stood 3 and 1/2 feet off of the surface of the floor or table the model wheel was placed upon. But, he certainly would not have had the bottom of its drum in contact with a floor or table which would have prevented its free rotation. To make the prototype model wheel as easy to work on as possible, it would have been mounted on a small wooden stand that elevated the bottom of its 3 foot diameter drum off of the supporting surface. Bessler liked to work with whole numbers and simple fractions of them. Having the stand hold the bottom of the prototype's drum 1/2 foot or 6 inches off of the supporting surface would then cause the top of the drum to be 3 and 1/2 feet or 42 inches off of the surface. Contrary to what is commonly believed, my research indicates that he actually constructed 2 wheels at Gera, both of which were one-directional. The first had a 3 foot diameter drum and the second had a 4.5 foot diameter drum. There was, however, a big difference in their maximum startup output power levels. Because of its light weight and portability, Bessler kept the original 3 foot diameter drum Gera prototype with him even while he was destroying the larger editions and moving to different towns. He always needed to have something tangible with him that he could show to prospective buyers during the months between the existences of larger wheels so they would know he did have a design that worked. However, that 3 foot diameter prototype was finally destroyed after his arrest for fraud based on bogus charges lodged against him by his fired maid. That arrest really shook Bessler up and greatly escalated his paranoia about the security of this invention's secret. He realized that, based on false charges, he might be physically removed from his home at any time without warning and any evidence in it, including his Gera prototype wheel, could be seized by the authorities and the secret revealed in a court of law whether he liked it or not. To prevent that possibility, he destroyed that 3 foot diameter prototype wheel along with any and all diagrams that showed the internal mechanical details of his imbalanced pm wheel design. After that destruction, he simply carried the design around in what he considered the only safe place: his mind! I've worked with the design he used so long that I could, if all of my files were suddenly lost due to a hard drive failure, be able to redraw it from memory if I had to. The design is, at first glance, very simple. But, that simplicity is deceptive because a wheel's internal configuration actually forces a wheel's weighted levers to swing about their pivots inside the drum in a very precisely coordinated manner without which achieving sustained imbalance is not possible. Without the clues to the parameter values of a drum's various internal components provided by the carefully hidden clues of the two DT portraits, the chance of anyone discovering them by accident is next to zero and that is why there has been no progress in reverse engineering Bessler's wheels in the last three centuries. Quite fortunately, however, that sad situation will be suddenly changing next year!

      Delete
    4. Still making statements Ken as if they are facts whereas, like it or not, all of the above is speculation with a light sprinkling of facts drawn from my own publications, with no acknowledgement to me a the original researcher and author.

      JC

      Delete
    5. All I can say in response, John, is that the statements I am making are based upon my own research into Bessler's inventions. That research showed me that he actually constructed two one-directional wheels in Gera and not one as is commonly and erroneously believed to be the case. Much of the information I now possess is derived solely from the two DT portraits whose existence I do not credit to you since you were not the one who created them. However, I do praise you for having brought those DT frontispieces to the attention of the world. If I had had access to them earlier, I believe I could have successfully reverse engineered Bessler's wheels decades ago! Anyway, I mentioned above that Bessler liked to work with whole numbers and simple fractions. He also liked to work with simple multiples of numbers. Starting with a 3 foot diameter wheel, one need only multiply it by a factor of 4 to obtain a 12 foot diameter wheel. There are clues embedded in the portraits that indicate this is to be done and the various parameter values for the internal components of both a 3 foot diameter and 12 foot diameter wheel were carefully hidden in the portraits, but one must know where to find them. I do and soon so shall everyone else concerned. Bessler, however, constructed more than just those two diameter size wheels and intended a future successful reverse engineer to learn enough from them through the many DT portrait clues to be able to replicate any of the wheels he built during his life! I will be providing the serious Bessler researchers out there with all of the internal parameter values for all of his known wheels (I count eight of them!) so that the craftsmen among them will have all of the critical information they must have to immediately begin building working replica wheels of various sizes and power outputs and capable of rotation in either one or two directions.

      The world of serious Bessler researchers has a big and most pleasing surprise in store for it come the new year!

      Delete
    6. God help us John, you have the patience of a Saint!!

      Delete
    7. Reminds me of a chapter in the book, "Treatise on Trochilics and its Application in Various Mechanical Devices".
      In it the author, Eric von Klugsheisser, describes a conversation he had with Heironymus Karl Freidrich von Munchausen, about the theft of the secret of Bessler's wheel.
      It goes like this.
      Munchausen had allied himself with a professional lockpicker and house breaker, named Fritz Tachenicken. They had met while both were serving in the army, Tachenicken offered his services as a spy, to avoid jail time.
      The pair had charmed their way into the service of s'Gravesande, and secured positions as his personal guards.
      One night when Bessler had gone to sleep, Takenicken was on duty outside the workshop, he deftly picked the locks, and let Munchausen in, locking them again afterwards so as not to give the game away.
      When Bessler arrived for work the next day, he was none the wiser.
      Munchausen could see everything from his concealed position.
      He describes the wheel thus, "The wheel was made in two parts, one half the reverse of the other, each half divided into five segments, with a heavy beam fixed by a pivot to the narrow end of the segment, near the hub.
      The heavy beam was two thirds the length of the chamber's side, affixed to the end was an extending lattice, with a weight on the end.
      Munchausen thought it to be too simple, a beam that as it moved from one side to the next, moved the weight in and out. Always being two in on the ascending side, and three out on the descending side.
      But what of the springs, ropes and pulley Bessler had mentioned ?
      That question was soon answered, Bessler took two spiral springs, and attached them to the hub, one side facing one way, and facing the other way on the opposite side, then threading a cord from the end of the spring, it was fitted to each of the beams, as Bessler turned the wheel a ratchet engaged on the other side of the wheel, towards the direction of rotation, this caused the spring to tension, and pull taught the weights on one side , locking them in a balanced neutral position.
      At last, the secret was known.
      Munchausen's exit was carried out in the same manner as his entry.

      Klugshiesser asked Munchausen why he hadn't revealed the secret, the reply was that he feared for his life as it would be obvious to s'Gravesande that treachery had taken place.
      Since this was many years after the death of Bessler and s'Gravesande, Munchausen felt safe to reveal the secret, but too much time had passed, and he was not believed.
      When Klugscheisser researched Munchausen, he found only one entry in an obscure book, it confirmed his nobility, but he was always regarded as the black sheep of the family. The only other mention was of the family motto.

      "Quo fidelis oratum ou todo fecestium bovinicus"

      Delete
    8. Many think that Baron Munchausen was a fictional literary character, but the reality is that he was a actual German nobleman. He was a retired German military officer who, after about 20 years of fighting the Turks, spent his retirement years partying with the nobility and amusing them with his incredible tales of adventure that were always just barely plausible. Of course, I think we can safely dismiss von Klugshiesser's story that Munchausen had managed to gain unauthorized entry into the sealed room in Weissenstein Castle to steal the secret of Bessler's Kassel wheel as total "fecestium bovinicus". That wheel was destroyed in 1721 when Munchausen was only about one and half years old! The real Munchausen was born May 11th, 1720 and died February 22nd, 1797.

      The description of the Kassel wheel's internal components is hard to follow, but he was right about the wheel being divided into two halves which were the reverse of each other. The rest is erroneous, of course. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day! But, thanks for posting the material anyway.

      Delete
    9. Fascinating Stevo. I had not come across that book. I must admit that some of Munchausen's description of the interior of the wheel is believeable but not all of it. I assume he is describing the bi-directional wheel and guards at the Kassel wheel.

      I don't know that motto.

      JC

      Delete
    10. Ken, both wheels are well-known as being seen at Gera, the first one was as I described above, but the one which was acclaimed in the Gera examination is commonly referred to as his first wheel. It was 2.5 ell which was 4.6 feet in diameter.

      Ken I used the word research because I examined the books Bessler had published and then had them translated into English and then published for all to read for themselves. It is hardly the same thing to say that your research into imaginary codes proves this that and the other without offering any proof whatsoever.

      JC

      Delete
    11. Thanks for acknowledging that Bessler constructed two wheels in Gera: the 3 foot diameter prototype and the larger 4.5 foot diameter one that was the subject of an official examination of sorts. I have interacted with many over the years that think there was only one and there was some confusion about its diameter being 3, 3.5, 4.6, and I even recall one figure of 5 feet reported somewhere.

      You have described my research as being "into imaginary codes" and I can only assure you at this point that they are most definitely not imaginary, but, in fact, contain the critical information needed to finally duplicate all of Bessler's wheels. The proof, unfortunately, will have to await the publication of my book. There is a lot of material concerning Bessler's wheels that has never before been realized and it really requires a book length treatment to do it adequately. I promised above that I would try to avoid giving our "teaser details" about the work. I will just say that the hidden clues in the two DT portraits required several chapters and many figures to explain adequately and, incredibly, I'm not sure if I found them all! Even after I get the ball rolling, there will still be more work for future Besslerologists to do with regards to the two DT portraits.

      Delete
    12. Ken, I must remind you of your promises to me; to keep your posts short; refrain from advertising your book and keep your post to just commenting on the subject under discussion.

      JC

      Delete
    13. Lord knows I'm trying, John. But, at least we've cleared up any misconceptions lurkers may have about the number of wheels built in Gera.

      Delete
    14. There was never any doubt Ken. It clearly states in his Apologia Poetica, that his first demonstration wheel stood 3.5 feet high, but his first official examination was the wheel which was 4.6 feet in diameter.

      I think the confusion lies in the widely read news about the the first testimonial which referred to the larger Gera wheel. The earlier reference to the smaller wheel was only noticed if one read his account in AP.

      JC

      Delete
    15. "Lord knows I'm trying, John. . . ." - KB

      Does He?

      Is it only me or . . . is it that I sense that a certain saintly patience is being tried once again and thus is wearing thin dangerously?

      And afterward the inevitable result as has gone before, is there to be forgiveness and a reestablishment allowed yet again?

      Truly, only the Stars hold the answer true and correct - "Criswell Predicts"

      Delete
  5. @ Ken, I forgot the Snr. at the end of Munchausen.

    @ John, I'm surprised you haven't come across this book in all your years of research.
    At the back of the volume there is a plate that depicts the Munchausen coat of arms, the motto is in the "folded ribbon" underneath.
    The coat of arms is unusual, it is a shield held aloft by two rampant oxen, placed on top of the shield, instead of the usual plumed knights helmet is a chanticleer, in all it's glorious plumage.
    The shield is divided into three fields by the use of a broad chevron, the top left field contains a flambeau, the top right field shows a maiden sitting atop a wishing well, the bottom field has an open book in it.
    I've tried to discover the interpretation of the device, as far as I can tell, it means this, " It's a flaming well maid up cock and bull story".
    The motto, as much as I can understand reads, "Who speaks faithfully, or is it total b*llsh*t.
    Well, at least my tale isn't as boring a load of drivel as some comments on your blog !

    8-D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks again Stevo, I confess I hadn't heard of the book, but upon doing a quick search for it I was amazed to discover a link to an earlier post by you in which you quote from the same book, using Klugscheiser's humerous term, 'diuternal verticity device'. On 15th August 2014.

      JC

      Delete
    2. It also appears that there's still more than one philosophunculist making comments since then. 8-D

      Delete
    3. philosophunculist - A minor or insignificant philosopher; someone who claims philosophical expertise that they do not possess. [from 19th c.]

      Thanks Stevo. 8-)


      JC

      Delete
  6. this englesh guy has attitude against pm wheels. but he shows nice wheel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiZU3BvqvP4


    boris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3 comments on this: 1) Is it really true that the patent office will no longer accept perpetual motion machines AT ALL? Or is it that they won't accept one without a working model. I have heard both cases stated. 2) this guy thinks a "perpetual motion machine" like the non-working one he is demonstrating there, is equivalent to free energy. No, they are not equivalent. A classic PMM does NOT create energy out of nothing. It uses gravitational force to work. 3) As someone in the YT comments pointed out, just like with Physics Girl, this guy turns the wheel in the wrong direction, just to make sure it doesn't work...

      Delete
    2. One can get a pm device patented, but in the US and Britain you must be able to back up your claim with a working model that the patent (I love the way the English pronounce that word as "pay - TENT"!) office examiners can personally examine. I've seen many similar videos to the one Boris provided a link for in which the fact that energy can not be created is used to deny the possibility of a working pm machine that outputs more energy than it consumes to stay in motion. I also accept that argument as valid and that is why all pm machines either do not work or are hoaxes with hidden power supplies. One might think then, since Bessler's wheels worked, that would mean they therefore had to be hoaxes and most scientists today would go along with that opinion. Well, if one defines a hoax as a machine only having a hidden power supply, then by that definition Bessler's wheels were hoaxes! However, if one defines a hoaxed wheel as having a hidden power supply that the inventor is well aware of but not disclosing, then Bessler's wheels were not hoaxes (and this is the definition I use). What was that "hidden" power supply in Bessler's wheels?

      In the design I've found provided by the DT portrait clues, the hidden power supply in Bessler's wheels was the mass of the weighted levers themselves. Mass and energy are the same thing and those weighted levers represented an enormous supply of it when one applies the E = mc^2 equation to them. His design, by keeping the center of gravity of the weighted levers to remain on a wheel's descending side during rotation, allowed that energy of its weighted levers to be slowly drawn off to power outside machinery attached to the wheel's axle. The moving parts of those outside machines then experienced an equivalent increase, although very slight, in their mass and energy content. Bessler, however, had no idea what was actually happening inside of his wheels. He only knew that "preponderance" or imbalance in a wheel led to rotation and his design was a unique one that maintained its imbalance. I think if one could go back in time and explain to him exactly how his wheels worked, he would be amazed by the explanation and so would the rest of the physicists of his day. Soon, the entire world will be amazed by his wheels again and he will, finally after centuries, regain in rightful place in the history of science!

      Delete
  7. http://www.wimp.com/this-lego-contraption-is-oddly-mesmerizing/
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love that undulating movement! Very clever.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Amazing what one can build if he has enough Lego parts! I thought that the rotating ellipse was superfluous, but, no, the undulatory motion in creates in the little claws that grasp the balls is important in dislodging them at the precise time so they can fall into the return ramp. Must have taken weeks to build this contraption.

      Delete
  8. It is interesting/hypnotic.
    Jon

    ReplyDelete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...