Sunday, 14 May 2017

You Can't Ignore the Laws of Physics!

Let's face it, you can't avoid, nor can you ignore, the laws of physics.The chief problem we face in making claims that we have discovered how Johann Bessler designed and built his perpetual motion machine are inevitably, the fact that such machines are believed to be impossible, they conflict with the laws of physics and they go against everything we have been taught about such devices.

When you or I succeed in reconstructing his machine, it should have become obvious to us how and why it works, before we begin the build.  Even then just showing the finished working prototype may not be sufficient to convince the diehard  traditionalists.  We have to explain the reason it works.  So getting to that point should not be delayed until after we've built it - in fact it's a vital ingredient of potential success that we fully understand the how and the why before even designing it.  And yet I get the impression that probably more than 90 per cent of perpetual motionists are still seeking the solution without working out a concept which avoids conflict - and that will lead to success.  In other words they haven't formed a convincing argument that will answer the questions raised by the establishment that such machines violate the laws of physics. This answer should be part of the design process otherwise it can only lead to continued failure.

I think I know how to design a work-around that will circumvent those obdurate laws of physics and that is what each of us needs to attain - a believable concept which avoids the usual consequences of the actions and reactions of gravity and mass in a perpetual motion machine, according to the accepted laws of physics.

Bessler warned that when we design a wheel whose weights moved a little further from the centre on the downward side of the wheel, than those on the rising side, it is doomed to remain stationary.  This looks like good advice.

I assume that those who read this are already convinced that Johann Bessler succeeded  in building his gravity-enabled wheel and that he did not lie.

I think Bessler had little knowledge of why his unsuccessful wheels didn't work, but he did not know that what he was trying was impossible, so he kept going.  At some point the solution or at last a way forward must have occured to him - remember the dream.  Once he had the workable concept it was just a matter of time before he was successful.

JC

52 comments:

  1. "Bessler warned that when we design a wheel whose weights moved a little further from the centre on the downward side of the wheel, than those on the rising side, it is doomed to remain stationary. This looks like good advice."
    Bessler didn't said that. That is like so many other "clues" a false translation. Don't get me wrong, it could be right that the weights on the downward side must not further from the center than those on the rising side, but Bessler didn't said so. Don't know from where you get this translation, but it is definitely not that what he said.

    ovaron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So then what is the correct translation?

      Delete
    2. In Apologia Poetica, chapter XLVII, just before the end, he wrote, "Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience. "

      So I paraphrased it, sorry.

      JC

      Delete
  2. In my view John refers to Apologia poetica 1 page 82:

    "Denn manche Mob’lemacher denken,
    Wenn ihre Sachen sich nur lenken,
    Heraus ein wenig weiter hier
    Als dort – o! so wird’s lauffen schier;"

    Bessler talks here about tinkering with the weights, here a bit further to the inner side and there a bit further to the outer side in the hope that that will turn the wheel. He does not mention the ascending or descending side. Maybe John interprets what fits best into his concept. Please don't get me wrong. This can be true, but it's not what Bessler said.

    ovaron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Denn manche Mob’lemacher denken,
      Wenn ihre Sachen sich nur lenken,
      Heraus ein wenig weiter hier
      Als dort – o! so wird’s lauffen schier;"

      "lenken" or "left" in English. There's more to this, and shows that John isn't exactly right about his translation. I know because I live in Germany :-)

      Delete
    2. ovaron, I know no German whatsoever, and had to advertise in a newspaper many years ago for someone who would be prepared to translate the German so that I could try to understand what was written. My translator who has since become a friend asked me if I wanted a literal translation which would not read well, or his best interpretation of what he believed Bessler was saying. Now you may speak German but I don't and therefore I'd prefer it if you would try to make allowances for my lack. If I hadn't managed to get all this tranlsation done, and published, none of us would even know about Bessler's work.

      JC

      Delete
    3. John, as you said ,this was paraphrased, enough said.

      To those that disagree with you, I say put up or shut up.

      Delete
    4. John, this was not an attack on your translation, which is quite good, as far as I understand English. Only your paraphrased part is not what Bessler has written and meant, "Bessler warned that when we design a wheel whose weights moved a little further from the center on the downward side of the wheel, than those on the rising side, it is doomed to remain stationary" and could lead some in the wrong direction. Bessler wants to say that it makes no sense merely to change the position of the weights, as long as one has not found his principle. No "warning" that you should not look for a mechanism where the weights on the ascending side are closer to the center than on the descending side. This, of course, does not rule out the possibility that his mechanism is so (weights on ascending side not closer to the center than on descending side).

      Elsewhere he says (Apologia 2, page 87)
      "Denn ohne mein Principium,
      ist kein Mob'le Perpetuum
      Wer anders sucht der wird betrogen"
      (Without my principle,
      It is not a PM
      Anyone who is looking otherwise is fooled)

      Btw, I find your books and your blog excellent. Your tremendous and excellent work is very appreciated. Everyone should have read your Bessler biography. Too bad that it is not in German. My school english is 40 years ago and I understand not everything. Since I am retired I live in Colombia and now my Spanish is better than my English. Dindn't you plan to publish a german version as well, did you?


      ovaron

      Delete
  3. John, was this topic trigered from my yesterdays comments?

    PLMKRN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry PLMKRN, I was unable to find a comment from you yesterday.

      JC

      Delete
  4. Hello, John. What do we know exactly about Bessler's famous dream that lead him to the working concept?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing specific Michel, just that Bessler had an invigorating dream following a depressing period, which revitalised his search for a solution. I theorised that he thought of, or dreamed of, a potential solution which he had to work on to use within his wheel.

      JC

      Delete
  5. So,
    if the weights do not move nearer, or further from the centre, how about along?
    Imagine a wheel with an even number of weights around the rim, perfectly balanced.
    Now, slide the weights at 12 O'clock, and 6 O'clock to the right of the centre line, and you have more weight on one side of the wheel than the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Stevo, how would you make the weights shift at the 12 & 6 O'clock position?

      Delete
    2. With the help of the Jolly Woodsmen, I call them that because on the toys page,in the bottom pantograph the men appear to be holding adzes, rather than hammers.
      And, that's enough, don't want to give too much away!

      Delete
  6. Hey Stevo, did you build a model of the gravity wheel yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not of the one I'm currently thinking about, but 8 non-runners so far, the first wheel I made was about 2Ft. (610mm) diameter.
      It was a simple 8 compartment model, with 8 weights on arms pivoted near the hub.
      I knew it wouldn't run, it was more of an experiment to see what had to happen inside. When it was at balance, all that was needed was to move the weight just before 12 0'clock to the top, this would make it turn one segment.
      I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to make that one weight move by leverage etc.
      My latest idea may overcome that problem.

      Delete
    2. I often here that word "runner". What is the definition of the word? Is a runner L shaped or a pivoting arm? How does it work? Other than that, is your latest wheel using the method you described in your previous comment? That is "having the weights shift at 12 & 6?

      Delete
    3. A "runner" in this instance means a working wheel.
      Yes, I do intend moving the weights at 12 & 6.
      A simple model will suffice to start with, just moving the weights by hand to prove the theory.
      The hard part will be making the mechanism that moves the weights.

      Delete
  7. moving laterally requires much less effort than making it rise up at 6 and 12, but moving the axis from ... say 5:30 to 6:30 and or 11:30 to 12;30 requires almost no energy at all

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean by moving the axis?

      Delete
    2. @ Gravittea,
      that thought entered my mind a while back, it was just a muse on a wheel with a loose fitting hub that raised itself by means of a special shape, kinda like the old Spirograph toy.
      If you use the toy using an off centre hole on one cog, and pass it around another cog, a spiral line that goes up and down is produced.
      But to work on a wheel, it would require a fixed axle, which Bessler's Wheel didn't have.

      Delete
  8. Here's a question: a lot of people would like to be the first to design and prove that a gravity wheel works. They also would like to get their design patented. But, aren't there people working for the patent office who are on the lookout for people with free energy devices in order to shut them down as soon as possible?

    ReplyDelete
  9. We all make mistakes or decide to cancel something we wrote and I understand that but if you, Perpetualman, could take a little more care I'd appreciate it. I've had to delete twelve of your self-deleted posts in the last few days. Having said that don't be put off by my request, just try to think ahead before publishing comments. Thank you.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, too many people in here are so full of words.
    How about working serious on you ideas in your respective workshops and just
    share good ideas here on this forum.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My deepest apologies John. Sometimes I get to ahead of my self and change my thoughts at the same time. I'll be more careful in the future with my comments. Hope you have a good day today.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How's the wheel coming along John? I'm just getting started with mine. It's just over 2 ft in diameter and will probably weigh a pound or two. The weights will probably be around a pound each, 8 total. I've tried many types of levers and hinges etc. but to no avail. But this time I'll be going a different route. This just might be the break through I've been striving for. Well, let me know🙂

    Is anyone else in the process of building their gravity wheel?

    ReplyDelete
  13. John, this is a really interesting topic as it goes right-to a fundamental issue that fascinates me.

    In part you wrote . . .

    "I think I know how to design a work-around that will circumvent those obdurate laws of physics and that is what each of us needs to attain - a believable concept which avoids the usual consequences of the actions and reactions of gravity and mass in a perpetual motion machine, according to the accepted laws of physics."

    . . . the juicy key part being ". . , according to the accepted laws of physics."

    Physicists, as we all know-well I believe, proclaim that the conversion of the force of gravity to energy is a task impossible of attainment, citing all the usual reasons.

    As given this I would expect that they would AGREE that if it were to be seen, an actual gravity actuated P-M, then the physics as they know and understand their laws likely would understand that these could not be squared with the reality, and that the physics themselves would have to be modified so as to accommodate the newly observed truth, not the other way around.

    (Demonstrable reality TRUMPS mere laws which afterward, on the account are laws NO MORE.)

    Now, given such a self-demonstrating new P-M, the other possibility that of necessity introduces itself (about which I have harped with not one ever responding-to or bothering to give an argument against) is that the effect achieved by obviously natural means and materials is after all ONE SUPERNATURAL and, that it cannot be squared with Natural laws on this account.

    At such a point everyone would WIN, except for hardcore atheists who would likely suffer terribly at such a paradigm shift/destruction of their world. For these and ones similar, the new reality would constitute one tough row-to-hoe.

    The reason I have pointed to Vibrator as being an important observing theoretician (even though one exasperatingly absent and aloof or, high-hat even) is that I am confident that he out of all of us would be able to, preliminarily at least, determine if laws are being violated that can or cannot be (and dispensing with all manner of patently egg-head "woo-woo physics" possibilities) answering for it's operation, and thus by this providing a fair declaration for us that a supernatural event is or is not transpiring, with such a succeeding new P-M's operation.

    Bessler BELIEVED, I think, that this was the very case. So, given that (as I understand it to have been) then why not others? (And, why seeming is there such resistance to this as a possibility, it come from a world of people that love fantasy, fiction, science fiction and all manner of such-like but, that simply will not admit it as a possible reality into their own?)

    As I've written numerously before, SOMETHING has to give somewhere! Only in La-La-Land itself can it be otherwise, and nicely/pleasantly rosy-perfect.

    Something's gotta give; some one or group GETS HURT!!! And you all KNOW which I hope it is to be, and why! (Big heads require periodic deflation, and thus the succeeded Behrendt Project for an example.)

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James,
      not really an argument but, Bessler may not have created a true PM wheel, after a year of running, it may have slowed down to 25.999 RPM, instead of the initial 26 RPM.

      Delete
    2. Are you making progress on your wheel Stevo?

      Delete
    3. Dude!
      It's only at the head scratch and scribble stage at the moment, and constantly being put aside to make way for the honeydew list. :-)

      Delete
    4. Aaawsome dude! I know all about the honey do list. Well keep up the good work 😃

      Delete
    5. STEVO,

      Hmmm, that is concerning. Let's keep our eyes on this for any trending.

      Delete
  14. Well, gravity alone may not be the power source in Bessler wheel case...A unique blend of inertia, CF, CP, Angular Momentum in conjunction with gravity could be responsible...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Looking for a loop hole in the laws of nature, a way to circumvent them, or a way to prove them wrong is what is keeping us from finding a solution.

    Instead we should be looking for a movement or movements whereby a mass is capable of performing a specific amount of work as it moves along a path, and the energy required to reset that mass to its initial position is less than the work performed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, I appreciate how you worded it, straightforward and to the point.

      Delete
  16. Just now it has been anonymously asserted that "Looking for a loop hole in the laws of nature, a way to circumvent them, or a way to prove them wrong is what is keeping us from finding a solution."

    This could be.

    As a supposed alternative the same zeroite asserts also that "Instead we should be looking for a movement or movements whereby a mass is capable of performing a specific amount of work as it moves along a path, and the energy required to reset that mass to its initial position is less than the work performed."

    Sadly and as usual for it's sort, it is a false alternative as it seeks to contravene the laws governing the conservation of energy and momentum. Cut-and-dried. Not rocket science.

    Was it a nice try?

    Instead, we might consider this: Of all of you daring to read this that have gotten this far, how many THINGS have you been able to imagine that are not possible of-doing in this realm of reality that we inhabit???

    Such imaginings so extreme are ones that if, they were to exist, would of-necessity be classified as "super natural" meaning simply that they cannot 'be' because limited by Natures' various laws acting to prevent same.

    And yet, STILL these may be mind-conjured ad infinitum, and imagined and experienced in a way AS IF real. (Are our animal co-inhabitants capable of doing this? As-yet, we don't know but will be on the look-out.)

    Well, then, in order to accomplish what we most desire here, this being the attainment of a perpetually supplying rotatory energy source, simply bypass Nature and go SUPER!

    Yes, just as with a time machine, imagine with all of our creative might THE device that can split symmetries of input asymmetrically/physically . . . and BUILD IT! Then cause the gains in one direction to self-impel!!

    VOILA! as our French friends love to exclaim upon realizing of attained wondrousness.

    This is the limitation against which we struggle - a lacking of imagination.

    As the zeroite poster equivalently proclaimed, loop-hole searching won't cut it - Nature's agin it.

    Now, let's start thinking outside of the Natural Box.

    James

    ReplyDelete
  17. "a mass is capable of performing a specific amount of work as it moves along a path, and the energy required to reset that mass to its initial position is less than the work performed."

    Seems simple enough. I'll build a simple mechanism and see how well it works. And then let everyone know how it turned out.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It does seem simple enough.

    Problem is that that capable mass has to be 'charged' with energy potential in order to become kinetic and actually do it's thing.

    Hoping that after all the action that has occurred will net one a gain, is but the stuff of which La-La Land is made, conservation of energy laws saying-so.

    The commenting Zeroite spun some fine words alright but, they do not add-up to the sensical. No cigar.

    (And WHERE is Vibrator to finally put this puppy to bed?)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, I have an idea that I'm going to try that will supply some potential energy for the weights and if I've done it right, it should have a net gain. Of course there is that big word "IF" and that does not mean instant failure. I'll just try something that no one has tried yet, or at least not from what I've seen of drawings and other wheels on the Internet. I've got a simple idea that I'm going to try to see if it will actually do what I predict it to do. And then we can put this puppy to rest.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ha!

    Fair enough!

    We await reportage of positive results.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Several systems are needed to glimpse a permanent chaos, re-initialize a downhill mass to make it go up is an error (vibrator, no chance to glimpse the least result with a soft), Two masses of which one shifts by 5 millimeters Very little), plus a pendulum to handle the chaos should make us reach the grail without violating anyone ...
    The whole is a mass ratio in movement, the secret is the TIME that each mass puts to reach what one asks to him.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Every single bit of the directly above, seems most reasonable to me.

    Such explaining and displays of advanced explanatory power, stand high always as examples for why we need their like here - the aid of the bigger-brained and likely greatly-wall-degreed types (or, at very least, would-be) - this so as to sort-out and make clear to us all the vital minutia of the technicalia of what we attempt to comprehend, but which otherwise without, remain only as frustratingly opaque and thus, sadly inaccessible to we clueless, non-degreed strugglers.

    (Now opacity does have it's uses when, say, working a con or dong a wing-ding on a mark so, please, please do not get me wrong on this point folks, OK? Always, in all instances, I endeavor for fairness and honesty, if nothing else.)

    When it comes to us smaller, more modestly-endowed brain sorts, we do require such help, no doubt and, are appreciative of it when and where dispensed just as previous, as done by thx4 himself! (Marveling and admiring, we offer our thanks for it, I am sure.)

    As more succinctly-put, in our smaller more mundanely dimensioned ever-dragging 'vies ordinaire', such elevated views and abilities are always necessities that nag frustratingly as unsatisfied when and where found absent, which then in such cases MUST be met finally/surely by our cerebralated greaters, they with their justly celebrated abilities/powers.

    As a vexing, damnable reality with which we must deal day-to-day, THIS CANNOT BE ESCAPED!! (It must be admitted!)

    James - (Small-of-mind admittedly but . . . NOT small of heart!)

    ReplyDelete
  23. This forum is so entertaining, I love it 😁

    ReplyDelete
  24. I just thought of another question: when Bessler said that the weights are placed together one against another, was he describing the weights in his two directional wheel or was he describing a one directional wheel? Or are the weights he was talking about are the same setup for both wheels?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There two types of weights in Bessler's wheel. The weights in the outer OB wheel, such as in MT9, and the inner prime mover mechanism. I think we need to carefully consider his words before jumping to a conclusion as to their meaning and importance. Weights moving outward while others move inward, or weights working against one another such as those at opposites ends of a crossbar would, both would describe the behavior of the weights in the outer OB wheel, and if this is the case, Bessler is not telling us anything we could easily deduce.

      Delete
  25. Spinning and turning round and round, one weight goes up another comes down. The wheel is light and not so wide, it's as beautiful as a peacock when viewed from the side. There's no shame in shedding some tears, it's only been a little over 300 years. But fear not my brethren for just over the hill, is the perpetualman, and his new gravity wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, if others won't I will say it: VERY NICE!

    A fine thing as coming from the heart, no doubt!

    Our estimable host/moderator JC himself wrote a really nice thing too. It was some time ago that he did, and it may be found (if you search there just a bit) upon his main site. I believe it's address can be found on these pages somewhere at the right?

    Best of luck with getting there, just over the hill, Perpetualman!!

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you James, I'll check it out.😁

      Delete

Vertical Axis Gravity-Enabled Wheel?

Johann Bessler's perpetual motion machine took the form of a wheel mounted on a horizontal axle, but it has thought it might be possibl...