Monday, 21 May 2018

Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, Found Bessler’s Wheel was Easy to Understand.

When I began my biography about Johann Bessler, I had already completed several years research into his life, acquiring many documents, as well as much additional information from historic records, and I decided to publish everything I had found, concentrating on evidence provided by Bessler himself, and as much as possible from witnesses.  I hoped to provide enough of an incentive to persuade others to seek Bessler's solution.

I believe that Bessler fully intended to sell his machine if at all possible, but he seemed right from the beginning, to think that he might have to accept post humous acceptance, which is why he left as an alternative enough clues so that some one later, after his death, could still discover his secret.  To that end I was certain that Bessler would not have included any lies about his machine although he definitely wrote ambiguously at times.  Lies could be challenged by a purchaser of the wheel, after the event, and Bessler sought acceptance to higher social circles, through the sale of his machine. Lies, would not help either in the sale nor its aftermath.

As for the evidence of the eye witnesses, obviously they could not see inside the machine but they did their best to provide descriptions as accurately as possible.

It has therefore puzzled me from time to time to see many valiant, determined efforts to replicate Bessler's wheel, while undoubtedly making erroneous assumptions or just discounting some evidence that we can assume was accurate, in order to complete their designs as they saw them, or according to their pet theories.

I refer, for instance, to the frequent declaration that Bessler's wheel had eight weighs.  Where did this figure come from?  There is the letter to Sir Isaac Newton in which Fischer von Erlach describes the "sound of about eight weights landing on the side towards which the wheel turned". But this refers to the Kassel wheel, capable of turning in either direction and requiring a gentle push in either direction to start rotating, and which gradulally accelerated to full speed.  Fischer spent at least two hours with the wheel and could only say that there were about eight weights.  We can only speculate about the examination, but I'm sure Fischer attempted to define exact;y how many weight he could hear landing, and yet he couldn't be precise, which suggests that there was a lot of distracting noises occurring at the same time.

Let me explain why this eight weight assumption is wrong; let us return to Bessler's first two wheels which were only able to turn in one direction.  They were able to begin rotation as soon as the brake was released.  Not only does Besssler tell us that these two could begin to rotate spontaneously as soon as the brake was released, but we also know that many spectatorres were encouraged to screw a bolt in and out to slow or bring the wheel to a halt, by simply making the end of the bolt rub against the side of the wheel, and unscrewing it to release it to allow it to regain full speed.  The wheel did not require a push to start, it started spontaneously.  But why did Bessler invent a wheel which could turn in either direction?  To answer the accusations from some people that the wheel must have been wound up.  Bessler believed that the two directional wheels would answer that criticism.

He set out to design this two way wheel and it has always seemed to me that the first and most obvious solution might be to set two wheels, linked together on the same axle, to see what would happen, but with one set to drive the wheel in the opposite direction to the first one.  Obviously this would remove the spontaneous start, but perhaps a push might set them of spinning, and depending on which direction the push was given might provide accelerating rotation.in that direction.

But here is another assumption which Occam's Razor would appear to rule out. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. So when I see people ignoring the simplest explanation for the design of the two way wheels, by suggesting some clever mechanism which would allow both directions from one set of weights I'm extremely sceptical.  Why complicate what may be a simple solution to the two way wheels?

The eight weights applies to the two-way Kassel wheel; some weights may have been padded to remove or reduce the sound of their impact; this means there may have been one more for eac direction; this could add up to five weights for each direction, not four.  Bessler even admits to adding felt on his earlier wheels to deaden the sound they made. For someone today to be designing a one-wheel with eight weights is therefore illogical; designing a two-way wheel before you've designed a successful one way wheel is also illogical.

In my opinion the one-way wheels required five mechanisms.  The two-way wheels require five mechanisms for each direction.  This is something I have established to my own satisfaction, but that is not to say that some other configuration requiring more weights is not possible, but for me its a case of Occam's razor again.

JC

85 comments:

  1. I don't get your point. You first say;

    "Lies could be challenged by a purchaser of the wheel, after the event, and Bessler sought acceptance to higher social circles, through the sale of his machine. Lies, would not help either in the sale nor its aftermath."

    Well, then, 8 weights must be the truth... I am sorry but it is your own logic...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to have missed my point, yellow. The reference to eight weights related to the Kassel two-way wheel. I suggested that anyone seeking the solution to Bessler’s wheel would start by trying to make the one-way wheel. Rather than have me repeat the whole argument right underneath my post, have a look st what I wrote again. It’s all there. : -)

      JC

      Delete
    2. John Collins,

      Here's something simpler yet; I submit that all four wheels would turn in either direction and all were self stating. The only difference is the first two wheels were biased in such a way as to always start in the same direction. You couldn't have your academies screw turning backwards, right? The last two wheels had a neutral position. After they were pushed out of neutral they were self starting. This means there was very little deference between them. If you get one you get the other-----------------
      but, what do I know.


      Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    3. I still prefer my option Sam, but only time will tell who is right, but I do believe that it would be very difficult to achieve the two-way wheel in any other way than the way I suggested. You can offer the idea a bias in the two-way wheels but I think it would be much harder to achieve.

      I have written of this before, but years ago, before I even wrote the bio, I had tested my theory by attaching two savonius windmills, designed to turn in opposite direction, onto the same vertical axis. First they were not connected to each other and when I turned on a fan next to them, each turned in opposite directions as you would expect. When I connected the two, they remained stationary until I gave the two assemblies a nudge in one direction or the other. Then they each performed as I expected, accelerating slowly to about half the speed when operating on their own, but together in the same direction.

      I described this in my bio of Bessler. And I also lectured on it with larger demonstration models in front of several audiences back in 1995! To me this is the most logical and simple solution to Bessler’s two-wheels.

      JC

      Delete
    4. I am not missing your point John. You say "Bessler couldn't lie if he wanted to sell his wheel".

      Adding felts for decreasing the noise of "some" weights would be a deception or a lie. It is as simple as this.

      So, the number of weights must have been 8 or 16 for the Kassel wheel, if Bessler was not deceiving the audience.

      I am sorry, but you are trying to fit the evidence to your pet theory which revolves around the magical number 5.

      Delete
  2. My view is also that there was no need for bessler to lie... He concealed the inner mechanism and not necessarily the banging... It is possible he could have tried to muffle or reduce the noise... Bessler's honesty is unquestionable... He had declared that his machine was powered by weights... He even passed on a weight around for inspection... Concealed by a hankie, ofcourse... Number of weights cannot be different for all his wheels... Because, if you change the weight configuration the wheel cannot rotate... And this is because there is only one design that works...

    ReplyDelete
  3. As an after thought, perhaps we could resolve the issue of weight configuration in all his four wheels... It is possible the clue lies in the wheel rpm... The bi-directional wheel made only 26 rpm while the one-way wheel's rpm was 50...

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is no witness report about the one-way wheel weights' sound or banging...

    ReplyDelete
  5. If we examine his clue " and are ye yet without understanding" you will see a setup where the weights worked in pairs... The primer mover is leading the secondary mover. In this scenario The primer mover and the secondary mover are not in the same triangle. The primer mover is on the right and the secondary mover is in the next triangle (going clockwise) The basic setup of 3 is easier to be kept in an out of balance condition... and thus it would be in a state of being continuously out of balance So, there could be sets of 3,... 6... 9... 12... and it does not make much noise

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since there is no report on the sound made by weights in the one-way wheel can we presume it didn't make eight banging sounds, too...

    ReplyDelete







  7. It would be easy to assume that is a true statement... it did not


    ReplyDelete
  8. Sam Peppiatt is almost right.

    All four wheels are the same, the mechanism is symetrical.
    (it must be otherwise it could not spin both ways.)
    Once the weights start falling the direction is chosen.
    To make the wheel bi-directional you need springs to balance it so it can fall to the left and to the right.

    So, not the first two wheels are biased, but the last two are balanced.

    And then this; there's no code. The number 5 says nothing. If there is a magic number it is 3.
    (Or like Gravittea writes multiples of three)

    ___All things belong to one of three kingdoms ...
    ___Without such things as sulfur, salt, and mercury, ...
    ___Saturn, Mars, and Jupiter ...

    If the wheel looks as glorious as a peacock's tail, how many weights(eyes) are in there?
    I bet many. Not 8 and probably not 16 but more like 24.

    I am, like most of us, almost there. :))
    Goodluck everyone,

    Marinus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marinus,

      I think I'm in agreement with you in that he did 'something' with the first two wheels to insure that they would always start up in the same direction, quite what I don't know.

      Then, seams to me, the last two wheels had a reversing gear of some kind, which introduced, more than anything, a neutral position to prevent it from going either way.

      By pushing on the wheel, one way or the other, you could select either foreword or reverse. Do you have any ideas how it could have been done? Some how things have to shift, in order to change the direction of rotation, right?

      All I can think of is an axial cam / clutch of some kind------------just waving my arms around, Sam

      Delete
    2. Sam,

      We are in agreement that all four wheels are the same. That is indeed the simplest assumption.
      It is my belief that he modified the last two wheels with springs to suit his needs.

      I know how he did it. I am just having a hard time proving it.
      But, don't we all. :))

      Marinus

      Delete
    3. Marinus,

      Yes, it's been difficult-------------------to say the least!

      Sam

      Delete
  9. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there were 8 or 16 weights. I am trying to follow John's logic. If John's logic is correct, the sound of the weights were not there for deception. Hence, 8 or 16.

    I think not the number of weights, the total weight of them must be important. He was harnessing gravity, do not forget.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's full of weights. That's important.

      Marinus

      Delete
    2. By revealing the number of weights in a wheel the wheel's secret is not lost... Hence, Bessler wasn't afraid about it... It is the designing and arrangement of them that mattered...

      Delete
  10. Bessler never revealed how many weights he used. Because it would bring you closer to the secret.

    Marinus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous Marinus: Regarding both of your assertions, I vote "perfectly correct"!

      As to WHY I am so cock-sure?

      It is simple: by observation and measurement of a fixed physical behavior as achieved - you know, that which trumps all else, laws (and thus "laws") included?

      Carry-on, Marinus Anonymous . . .

      Delete
  11. High number of weights must be due to some practical reasons. Fewer but heavier weights should also work. The rotational speed is just one parameter. You know, the total mass is also important for energy calculation. Slow but a heavy wheel can give lots of energy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is a history that we cannot ignore from the clues, the hidden images and now our own ...beloved leader, who after many trials and snares by Bessler... has reached an educated and informed conclusion after many years of dedicated and methodical research. In his (informed) opinion there is 5 sets of mechanisms. While I am still working on my own, with enthusiasm.... I do not have all those years of accumulated knowledge. John will be revealing more details in very short order to help guide us in our own seeking, just like he has done before.

    ReplyDelete
  13. RAF

    Greetings John,

    I agree with Yellow (15 FEB) in that 5 mechanisms is too complex. As Karl pointed out, the design was simple. John, would you please share with readers the cogent statement found in Perpetual Motion p. 208 in the first full paragraph starting with “Simplicity is the key…”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean this, RAF?

      "Simplicity is the key. Orffyreus, himself says that perpetual motionists have a tendency to add more and more gears, levers, and weights until the whole thing is jammed solid. The records of the patent office show numerous machines with very sophisticated leverage and springs and rotating gear wheels, all of which merely add to the friction - and the certainty that they will not budge. The successful machine will have an elegant simplicity about it, an arrangement that will make people wonder why they did not think of it themselves. Orffyreus himself, comments that when the secret is revealed, he is afraid that people will complain that the idea is so simple it is not worth the asking price."

      My words and I stand by them. I'm not sure what you're getting at?

      JC

      Delete
  14. il n'y qu'un seul poids :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Michel,

      Answer in eight days on BesslerWheel.com, but I have no doubt:), but well I wonder more about the most relevant way of spreading(broadcasting). And needs he(it) to spread(broadcast)? I have difficulty in falling asleep...

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

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

      Delete
    4. Bonjour, Thx4.
      Will you post in this place:
      http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7596
      À bientôt.

      Delete
  15. Hello John,
    I hope you do not take this as offensive, but it is something I have wondered about for a while since I've followed your blog. Bessler died without ever revealing his secret. Do you have a Plan B just in case "the inevitable", so they say, happens before your work can be published? It would be a shame for Bessler's secret to disappear twice...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None taken anonymous, I intended to keep a record for publishing in case of my premature decease, but it hasn't been finished yet plus I am not sure how to arrange things so that publishing occurs automatically at the right time. My wife is not really computer literate enough to know what to do, and I doubt if that would be the first thing on her mind at the time. Any suggestions welcomed.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, do you mean by referencing "premature" as referring to our 'borrowed time' on which we both now are, or is it, before Bessler's truth is finally revealed to a so-far mystified (or bored) world?

      .:.

      Delete
    3. Any day I decease will be premature, in my opinion James - alas it’s not within my power to delay the inevitable, but hopefully I may be able to linger longer in a relatively stable mental and physical condition!

      JC

      Delete
  16. John, this one is just smashing!

    It's gotten meself to thinking, as has no other from before.

    Since you seem committed to FIVE for this particular decade, I really need to know the following, if you might care to reveal any truth appertaining:

    Have you obtained by means of measured inner weight(s) fall, extra energy where such should not be? (As compared to that which you input initially?)

    If in fact you have, THEN 'you've got it!'

    But, if not, then . . . . . . (here, fill-in the blank for I cannot make myself write it).

    The achievement and verification of the presences of EXTRA ENERGY over what is put-in is THE KEY itself. (It lives!!) Once attained, one can do just about anything that one'd like with it.

    (You see, I remember that the Besslerman stated somewhere, someway, that he could accomplish rotation in various of ways, as I recall it roughly? This, then, indicates pro- the fact that energy identification may be had SEPARATELY from any rotation following.

    Does this make any sense to you? (Or, must I make the attempt otherwise?)

    Ciao!

    James ("naughty puppy")

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your latter point of view, James, but I have not measured anything because the solution does not require measurement! Once the mechanism is understood the need to measure anything is eliminated. Initial input by gravity equals output to rotation, but by a kind of cheat, there is sufficient left over to generate rotation, which accelerates at each turn. I haven’t built it yet but I am 100% confident that it’s right. I know that such comments elicit extreme scepticism and the response is usually on the lines of”oh no, not another claimant without a working wheel”, which is why I hid it here among the comments and in response to your specific enquiry, James!


      JC

      Delete
    2. "..because the solution does not require measurement!"

      You can never eliminate measurement in such device.

      Delete
    3. I agree that once the mechanism is understood measurement of energy output is secondary... The weights swing and then fall in such quick succession that the rotation is so continuous you will feel the surge of excess energy... the machine feeds on gravity in such a manner for it's performance that'll simply put the onlookers in wonderment... In such a situation who is going to go through the process of taking measurements... its for scientific community to see such things like measurements... Our effort in making the wheel will suffice... It should perform like the Bessler wheel... Our aim is to show the principle how it works... This itself is a very great thing...

      Yellow... I don't know how to convince you but you never seem to understand all the above...

      Bessler wheel principle is entirely different from all the conventional rotating machines or wheels... it is a simple ARTFUL arrangement of weights and levers to trick gravity in a very innovative way that beats normal understanding...

      Once the wheel starts to move on its own it is sheer amazement...

      Delete
    4. "It's the ENERGY that's the THING - either you have it or you have not !!!" - here quoting me own rascally little puppy self.

      As you might've surmised by now, John, my belief that any wheely rotations as might be achieved, are but a mere secondary benefit strictly, from ENERGY as actually, provably, measurably found where it should not be. Such an advent as this would pique the most intense curiosity of the most dispassionate of curious physicists as no other, so I assert with no little vigor.

      Indeed so!

      Whether uniquely originative (disallowed by science) or, commonly transformative (allowed by same), an above case would be of searingly intense interest for they, the forever curious, the forsworn Enemies-eternal of "Perpetual Motion" as notion or by accomplished fact.

      If we might, let us consider this:

      "Creation, in it's basic sense, -- the making of something out of nothing, - is, so far as science knows, impossible. Annihilation -- the reduction of something to nothing -- is also unknown to science." -- Orlando J. Smith from his Eternalism, 1904, Chapt. VII "Science Knows Nothing of Creation or Annihilation."

      Although stated so long ago, my guess is that what Smith put-forth would stand-up still today, with our rationally minded (hopefully!) physicist friend/foes.

      I understand and accept what you say, John, re the marvelous spectacle of a self-rotating wheel being, in propria persona prima facie ab initio, self-proving, and therefor not needing of analyses for any acceptance as such.

      Now, just what of this business that, not matter nor energy may be created or destroyed but, ONLY changed as-to-form? (Lead-to-gold transmutations, anyone?)

      Turning back to Smith's volume, but now from page 25:

      "THE whole theory of Creation -- the creation of the Universe, of the race of men, of the soul of the individual -- is at variance with the trend , deductions, and demonstrations of modern science."

      So they (the friend/foes), as simply put, are simply agin it!

      BUT . . .

      What if matters proved pro- energetic production/reduction in situ? Whereat might we then be left?

      Answer's simple: in Bessler Land is where.

      Journeyman organ builder Bessler believed (if I understand correctly) that what empowered his various wheels-a'turning, was produced by God's Leave and Grace and none other.

      The question as to 'from whence IT comes' has yet to be addressed by the 'ones that KNOW.' Afterward, the world will be either reassured to it's comfort or, thrust into realizations not welcome but, nevertheless FORCED to deal with A New Day, either way.

      I'll close with this treasure deriving of intellect greater than all of ours even as combined (and yes, including that of our own Vibrator - "The man of a billion words but never a conclusion-absolute." - Glory be!)

      "So great a difficulty hath it been thought to conceive matter produced out of nothing, that the most celebrated of ancient philosophers, even those who maintain the being of a God, have thought matter to be uncreated and coeternal with Him." -- Francis Bacon

      And the rotatory struggle grinds-on . . .

      James (And, becoming naughtier by-the-day!)

      Delete
    5. IT, comes from gravity. And this is not about creation or creating matter, but simply about creating movement.

      You might think that energy is created, but that is wrong. The energy is there all along. It just has never been harnessed. Just like the wind. If you don't catch it, it's gone.

      If the mechanism is revealed, the world-wide scientific community will accept it without demanding proof by measurement. For they will immediately understand where they have failed. They will have no other option then to admit their blunder. But they can defend themselves by just stating that no one else thought of it.

      And that is just the case. Newton forgot about something, and Bessler knew it. Newton's Principia is incomplete.

      Marinus

      Delete
    6. Having that stated, that is also why he was sure of posthumous recognition.
      Eventually someone would find it and then they would know that he was right all the time.
      Because the wheel will be as glorious as a peacock’s tail. If it's not, it won't work.

      Marinus

      Delete
    7. Unlike most here, obviously, I for one cannot dismiss out-of-hand that which Bessler believed-in totally - that his motive force driving his wheels came from . . . . . . , and not at all common earth bound Nature.

      For my own part I inquire generally: How could I KNOW the foregoing to be-so, or not???

      Again, for myself I'll answer it for you rhetorically: I could never until and unless I had witnessed it. And even then, I might not be able to discern just how the activating force was manifesting; i.e. whether as a "mere" energetic conversion OR, an on-site creation/annihilation, which would be very 'non-mere', to put it leastwise?

      That Nature Herself alone is responsible for all that is and ever was, cannot really be known. This, as I have here just stated it, can be known. To assert otherwise would require evidence proving that very negative - a really, really 'dicey' proposition. It is why I here risk asserting (sans equivocation) WHAT and AS I do.

      Statement of fact: none of you cock-sure and strutting, superficial commenters or myself can KNOW any one thing or things, other than what has been experienced, the rest being but guesswork and reportage of others', these for better or worser, mostly the latter, so I suggest. (And, here we might recall the definition for 'faith,' keeping in-mind what that is and what it is not more importantly?)

      "KNOWLEDGE CERTAIN AND TRUE" is rare stuff indeed, kids!

      This so rare commodity comprises what we have witnessed/experienced and no other; it is what WE are allowed to attest-to in an equity or law court while under oath.

      (The exception being IF you are an accredited specialist in some relevant field. Then, in such a case, one might be invited as a friend of the court, to enter into evidence one's OPINIONS as an 'expert witness' also under oath, these as well as what you had seen/experienced. You have all heard, I am sure, such as "Objection! Your honor, council is calling for an opinion from the witness!" This exasperates counselors when their fellows attempt it. Non-expert witnesses are not allowed to give opinions. In some rare instances, they might be if all - the opposers and the judge - agree that the circumstance is uniquely requisite. Then.)

      In closing and back on-point, as many of you obviously do tho likely unwittingly, or are inclined-to, you SLAP Bessler in right his face by denying as a possibility that other than Nature and her earthbound laws solely, can account for his wheel successes. (Well, you that do and he would have been quickly 'into it' with him, were you to have attempted it.)

      I find this found confluence of peculiarness narrow, immature and selfish/grasping in extremis.

      It is necessary to state-so, as I believe it at least provisionally, THE VERY CASE.

      Delete
    8. Well, in the end his wheel might explain the very existence of the Universe itself.

      It is very understandable that Bessler thought he had found a Devine force. But it is just plain physics.

      Marinus

      Delete
    9. By divine force he might have just meant gravity... As gravity was not fully understood then... Well, whatever this is, it is simply intriguing...

      Delete
    10. Of all the snot-nosed arrogance! This one's GOT to be the limit.

      Consider

      "Newton's Principia is incomplete."

      and,

      "But it is just plain physics."

      As pronounced with the scent of grandeur-inimitable unto Eternity by Marinus Anonymous himself . . .

      "THE MAN WHO KNOWS"

      https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+man+who+knows%22&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=eelgrhhFDLEMsM%253A%252C-5wH8sUMB9k_uM%252C_&usg=__ZHOC81wRogBC7HLKvOMVikpgVnY%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqquf1w7HbAhVJwVkKHYHwDnkQ9QEIZjAM#imgrc=eelgrhhFDLEMsM:

      Or, is the trouble here actually that he is but a mere a boy, now grown britches-too-big?

      WHICH answer true and correct cannot be known because he, she, it, or whatever actually HIDES behind anonymity, offering a who-knows-what "name".

      This search after a perpetual motion, or alternately "perpetual motion," seems to be producing a whole new class of psychoses, and, the longer that the struggle on-goes sans reward, the more intense the apparent symptomology becomes, seemingly.

      The activity over at The BWF positively is a barrel filled with monkeys, each a'scurrying frantically for one another's attentions, and naught else. [Translation: as-yet no thing there has moved perpetually, excepting for 6 billion-or-so words as passed, and those mostly gaseously! What might be such a count here???]

      Delete
    11. Arrogance is the main reasons why this is still not known to mankind. If you keep repeating what everyone already knows, you will never learn something new.

      Marinus

      Delete
  17. You are severely underestimating Bessler.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes same here, yellow, please explain.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  19. To anyone, Seams to me like you could measure the stall torque. They did have more or less Max. torque stalled right? Otherwise how could they self start? Maybe that's what he means---------------
    Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, maybe Sam, but I don’t see that as ‘severely underestimating Bessler’.

      JC

      Delete
    2. HI John Collins,

      No, you are right, I don't know what that means. I would like to correct an earlier post. I'm thinking now that all four wheels had a small control weight, that controlled the direction of rotation. On the first two wheels, the control weight was fixed. Which means, if I'm right, they could only turn one way. However, on the last two wheels, the control weight could be moved,(some how), from one side to the other, to change the direction of rotation. This means there were three types of weights; the driving weights out close to the rim of the wheel, the lifter weights close to the center, and a small control weight to select forward and reverse. Anyway that's the way it looks so far--------


      Sam

      Delete
  20. The bi-direction wheel is pretty much exactly double the thickness of the single direction ones, this smacks highly of two 'singles' back to back, with the non powering wheel mechs simply locking up because its direction is wrong. When still they fall back to operating position, hence one trying to go clockwise and one counter gives null. One small 'control weight' would probably not need double thickness. Plus explains how when challenged he can produce/demonstrate a bidirectional one quickly in only 'build time'. Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon,
      It may have been two singles, not back to back, but both pulling the same way. Also the reversing gear, if it had one, would add some thickness. Would you have two engines in your car? One for going forward and another one for backing up? Wouldn't a reversing link be a lot easier to build, than two complete wheels. And all the time one wheel isn't doing anything?

      But, I haven't done it yet, so can't be sure. Sam

      Delete
    2. Another possibility is the wider wheels simply had a different mechanism requiring more parts to be placed in the 'z' direction.

      Delete
  21. You guys aren't giving thoughts on the differing speeds in both cases... The bigger one sped half of the other... What does this denote?...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The larger/slower wheels may not have been able to withstand the CP/CF forces like the smaller/faster ones. His larger wheels also performed lifts and the faster turning wheels may not have been conducive to this so he slowed the speed. The larger wheels may also have turned slower due to internal timing constraints. There are many reasons I can think of why the larger wheels turned slower. Until we have exact replicas of his smaller and larger wheels we can't say for sure. Anything else would just be a guess.

      Delete
    2. I can think of only one thing why the larger wheel rotated slower... He might have employed half the weights in either direction... The larger one was thicker, too... Which coroborates this point... Maybe, the number of weights determined the wheel speed...

      Delete
    3. Suresh,

      Wheel speed, (no load), is determined mostly by the acceleration due to gravity. The wheel can't turn any faster than what a weight will fall. Seams like the last wheel turned very close to the max. theoretical limit. Like so: RPM = 16 / C X 60, 16 / 36 = .444 X 60 = 26.66 RPM. Don't seam like CF has any effect on it.
      Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    4. Yeh, you could be right...

      Delete
  22. It almost took 300 years to prove Newton wrong by Einstein... It is almost 300 years now for us to resolve Bessler issue...

    ReplyDelete
  23. John, as I recall you were thinking that the stork bill/ extending scissors played an important part in a successful wheel. Could you please take us through how it fits with the 5 mechanism scenario?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could but that would give too much away Gravittea ! What I can tell you is that the storks bill mechanism is slightly altered and works in a different way to the usual.

      JC

      Delete
  24. RAF Thanks John for sharing Bessler's statement on simplicity. I agree that the number FIVE is important but five mechanisms excludes itself because of its complexity! Why not five of something simpler?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s not that complex RAF, although it’s not simple for me to build, it is simple to understand. It does include a counter-intuitive feature in the design, which is why I have taken so long to find the solution.

      JC

      Delete
  25. RAF John,does your design include slider weights as well as swinging weights ? This would fit with His high quote : weights CLIMB BACK UP again. Climbing is not swinging.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No slider weights in my design RAF. “Climb back up” is a translation nuance and open to interpretation.

      JC

      Delete
    2. RAF, I am using sliders, So this quote would be or is important for what I'm trying to do. Please tell me more about it, if there is any more to tell.
      Thanks in advance, Sam

      Delete
  26. 5 mechs in 5 divisions, long lever with weight on end, this weight does not move in and out only falls forward/back on same path, at other end of lever is parallelogram/storks bill/pantograph type arrangement with 2nd weight attached.
    long lever falls after 12 pm and operates arrangement pulling up/out attached weight, rotates to 6 like that then long lever falls back other way and pulls 2nd weight back closer to centre. so two weights, one with concentric/circular path, 2nd weight has eccentric path with one side further away from centre. Now have to factor in springs. Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done! Very close to my design Jon, looking forward to your results. No springs in mine though.

      JC

      Delete
    2. There’s nothing wrong with a little healthy scepticism, Suresh.

      JC

      Delete
    3. 5. Weights acted in pairs - Bessler

      7. Weights came to be placed together,
      arranged one against another. - Bessler

      If the weights acted in pairs and were also placed one against another... then the total weights have to be in even number, isn't it?... In this case can a wheel really work with only five weights?... Never...

      Delete
    4. A casual look at all the 141 drawings can lead one to conclude that only one weight is generally attached to a given lever mechanism contrary to some of us claiming of attaching two weights in each mechanism...

      The phrase that weights acted in pairs is misconstrued by some of us into thinking that a pair means two weights in each mechanism...

      It is infact one weight in each mechanism... The weight on lever mechanism located opposite to the one on the other side is actually thought to be working in pairs... Like a see-saw performing...

      There are many such misconceptions that go to hinder our progress...




      Delete
    5. It is very important that we first ensure correctly the total number of weights used in a given wheel by bessler... In my opinion, the total is in even number and one weight per mechanism... Either four or eight or sixteen and definitely not five by any count... One weight lifts another on the opposite side... And so on...

      Delete
    6. 5 mechanisms, 2 weights in each, Suresh.

      JC

      Delete
  27. John, you don't have time to build as far as I can see. What is your plan ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deA6KbNZft0

      Delete
    2. Wow, that was a very old build. I had forgotten it was on YouTube. Best to ignore, it was going nowhere!

      JC

      Delete
    3. Yellow, I’m trying to fit in an hour most days to try and get this thing finished. That’s my plan, it seems the best way forward.

      JC

      Delete
    4. An hour? Oh man that is a very short amount of time for me :) I am very slow :) Can you do significant work in just an hour?

      Delete
  28. We are all counting on you John.... In my opinion each set of mechanisms stands pretty well on its own. The energy consumed and the energy generated simply cannot be the same. Even if it is just .01 on the positive side. Adding more mechanisms just adds more power. "And are ye yet without understanding" just shows the power pulses and their timing to benefit the whole 3 would just be .03 or 5 would be .05 Then with 8 would be the most at .08 Didn't he say that with one on the wheel it would just barely sustain rotation?

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://www.mooieenergie.nl/en/

    ReplyDelete
  30. RAF John, In Apologia Poetica, page295, are the high quote German words zuruck klettern used for climbing back up?

    ReplyDelete

Maybe Bessler’s Wheel COULD Solve Global Warming.

Sir David Attenborough at COP24, Katowice , warns,   “Civilisations are going to collapse and much of nature will be wiped out to extin...