Friday, 29 June 2018

Are There Any More Doubting Lions Roaring Around?

I borrowed the title of today's blog from Bessler's own words challenging those who disbelieved him to come and sit by his machine as it revolved.

I note that the the old familiar doubt about the truth of Bessler's claims has reared its ugly head again, on the Bessler wheel forum.

I published my book about Johann Bessler in 1996, and I thought I did a pretty good job of providing as much evidence as possible about Bessler and his machine and the tests, and the witness reports, and the letters about him, to him and by him.  I wrote and published the book because I was convinced of his sincerity about his machine.  Not only was the evidence convincing but you could feel the sncerity in the pain and anguish he suffered and emoted in detail in Apologia Poetica.  In my opinion no scam artist could write with such evident sincerity about his feelings about the rejection of his machine.

So when I read that someone who is relatively new to the forum keeps repeating the mantra, "if Bessler was telling the truth," or "perhaps Bessler lied,"  and often misquotes incorrectly passages from the book and all manner of untruths and half truths, I'm tempted to stop trying to persuade people of Bessler's ingenious machine and how much benefit it could bring to the planet earth in these difficult times. Why can't people only their write their ideas once they are in possession of the correct facts?

But in fairness to all those who aren't as familiar with the legend of Bessler's wheel as I am, I admit that over 300 years of schools and universities hammering the facts that perpetual motion machines are impossible and gravity cannot be used as Bessler seems to imply, is a paradigm that is going to take more than an ancient retired engineer (me!) berating them from a small insignificant blog, to persuade them that they are wrong.

There does seem to be the perennial question over the role of gravity in Bessler's wheel. Over the years I have come to accept that gravity itself cannot be regarded as a source of energy and the nuances of the connection between gravity itself and the force that drove Bessler's wheel are subtle and hard to explain, but this is my opinion.

Bessler implied that gravity was the source of energy but he did not say so explicitly.  He simply said that it was the excess weight, or extra heaviness on one side of the wheel that caused the wheel to overbalance, but we and thousands like us have been working on that theory for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.  He did not use the word 'gravity' because that word was coined almost accidentally by Sir Isaac Newton when he used it in his famous book, Principia' and in Besslers day that was largely unread by anyone other than the top philosophers of the day.  Newton's book was written in Latin, the universal language of learning, and he used the word 'gravity' as the Latin for 'heaviness' to describe this force we all call ‘gravity’ now.  But in Bessler's day they use words such as preponderance which can  mean superiority in weight or significance. This meaning relates to the word's Latin roots in the word praeponderare, which means "outweigh."  So looking for the word ‘gravity’ in Bessler’s papers will result in none being found.

Why have our teachers told us it is impossible?    Because gravity is a conservative force and the energy expended in causing a weight to fall exactly equals that  available to raise it again, and only then if you omit the energy used to overcome friction.

A weight can fall through any path, straight down or around in a curve, all that matters is the straight line vertical distance traveled.  These two factors mean a weight would have to fall in a closed loop, zero energy would be used, which would be impossible.  The assumption is that this rules out any chance of a weight driven wheel. working.

But they deny that it is possible to configure the movement of the weights to create a variation which would break open the closed loop making an asymmetrical loop.  If you study the argument if depends upon the motion of one weight around a circle, but we have always attempted to find a way to include various movements of each weight during its path around the circle in an attempt to create a variation on the closed loop which would achieve continuous rotation.  BTW note my preference of the phrase 'continuous motion' or 'continuous rotation' rather than 'perpetual motion', I just think its more accurate and less inflammatory.

NB I forgot to say that even though gravity is a conservative force and isn't a source of energy, the transfer of energy from the force of gravity to the weights is undeniable because it is this transference which enables the weights to fall.

My own wheel has been designed with a break in its closed loop which provides for a variable between each side of the centre of rotation and I am confident will lead to continuous rotation, but I didn't think of it myself, but was only able to work it out with Bessler's help!

Anyway whatever the result, work continues albeit slowly to the grand or not so grand finale.

JC 


26 comments:

  1. John Collins, Maybe part of the problem is; It's so much easer to belittle Bessler in every way imaginable, than it is to try and figure out how the wheel worked. For instance we might ridicule his EGO, but what do I know, Sam Peppiatt

    ReplyDelete
  2. John, Thank you for your persistence. It appears to me that there is a combination of activities that occur on the wheel, and it is the transference between different forces that force the wheel to turn. How we allow the two forces to interact is really the can of worms, spilling all over the floor waiting for us to put everything in its place. The clues are there and are in plain sight. Good Luck with your build.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John, this one was very nice. (They ALL are but, this one particularly was-so.)

    Gravity. Gravitas. Heaviness.

    Having here accessed it tangibly, demonstrably, there REMAINS NO QUESTION WHATEVER that gravity per se is to provide us ZERO energy, for it's being a thing uniform laterally for a given non-moving height, and therefore is (as 'they' so-enjoy obviously, impressing upon we non-physicists) rightly given the descriptor "conservative".

    (Please all do excuse the shouting there, but in this instance, it is mandated utterly.)

    A good decade+ ago, now, I posited privately to yourself, John, that our gravity field might allow for over-energy to manifest IF (and here please note that I am not daring just-yet to use term "create"?) there were a device kind that could be built, that would in-and-of-itself "respond asymmetrically" to it. If you might care to check your e-mails from that long ago (it was in one), you will find this.

    Respond with reaction!!!

    "For every action there is made one precisely opposing and co-equal." - My personal translation of the Latin original into parlance-modern. It explains my understating of it, tenuous as it may be.

    And further . . .

    In one PM sent just recently, I suggested that if you "were here" I would physically demonstrate to you wheel-style, of MUCH over-energy as to that input but, guessed that you likely would never happen to be in Nevada, and remarked that the one actually in nearest proximity to me was . . . (imagine here a drum-roll) . . . Scott himself, moderator and underwriter (if not that by the C.I.A.)of the friendly and fuzzy-warm B.W.F.!! He is in Colorado (or, at least, was), a state next to ours separated by only another, namely Utah. Way closer than yourself on that tiny pond-island, Fogland.

    As not unusually, you IGNORED this!!

    More and more common of you in these days of-late, as I've noticed. Now really, am I expected to be amused or of it, continue to be kindly ignorant?)

    "Patience's bag just wore-out; it's thin bottom just given-way!"

    We all are more than well aware that YOU desire mightily, that YOU are to be "the one"! (And, of course, implies at least that all OTHERS are to not!!)

    That the dreamed-of manifestation to all has yet to appear there, at your hands, in your little garden shop, in olde Angle-Land, I think is really getting to you.

    As time bypasses year-after-year, the cold first call of the Grim Reaper being hear'd ever so faintly tho sure, VISIONS of it's likelihood do begin to dim, do they not, John?

    That's all for now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, thank you for your comment, always acceptable although I sometimes lose the drift in your entirely reasonable and loquacious style, which if I may say so has a delightfully old fashioned tone to it, unlike any who write here.

      I do indeed recall your email regarding the possible asymmetric potentials of gravity some time ago and I believe I have taken a giant step towards the fulfilment of that desired end. It is this that consumes my time and leaves me too little time to respond as I ought, for which I apologise, as usual!

      Visions of the likelihood of the appearance of my successful wheel have brightened rather than dimmed James, and confidence is high as you guys like to say, (in movies anyway!)

      JC

      Delete
    2. John Collins, All I have to say is; you are a prince!! Sam

      Delete
  4. John Collins, The doubting lions are still roaring loud and clear! Just check out Wikipedia. They are supposed to know everything, right? Yet, they claim that not only was Bessler a fraud, he was a deliberate fraud! And, for the wheel to work, it would have to violate all the known laws of physics! They are too stupid to figure out how it worked; so, it has to be a fraud! I for one would love to shut them up! Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and at first sight very disheartening, but just imagine how embarrassed they will be when a working reconstruction of Bessler’s wheel is revealed! I think Wikipedia is useful, but I have added references to my books and other details over the years but they get removed by someone, so there is a kind of censorship going on to preserve the current scientific thinking. BTW thank you for your kind comment Sam.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Interesting comment. Not surprising though. I have myself edited this wikipedia article. https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krone-is unrelated to Perpetual Motion. But has to do with consensus versus facts. My grandfather invented this national ice-cream, and I know the truth about the origin. The media and consensus like to tell another story about the origin of the name of the ice cream. I hope my edit will stay on this one. The problem is that people like to correct others. So when my grandfathers words are being objected on national radio and media, it is a victory for journalists and people in general. Now everybody say: NO the old rumour about the name of our national ICE-cream is wrong! But the old saying was correct! Just like Bessler was correct! I have now made a major breakthroughs in my research about the wheel of Orffyreus. I may or may elaborate on this on BW, but I also may "disappear" for a while, while working. The codes was correct. The mechanical anomalies in MT was to show "the special handle construction". the codes was to show what wheel to modify. And the code was to show what kind of mechanism to add. Sorry to all nay-sayers :-) Best ØR

      Delete
  5. I think the main reason why BW is being doubted is because the matter is being confused with PM... As long as this misunderstanding remains many won't believe about BW... PM is impossible as per physics laws... But, BW is an exception as it uses several external forces like gravity, CP, CF, etc.,

    Another reason could be due to so many false claims so far...

    And yet another reason is due to no one coming up with a running model...

    I also feel that gravity declared as a conservative force is having a dampening effect on the possibility of BW...

    We need to consider so much before thinking of shutting up wiki, Sam...

    It is not their fault entirely... They are publishing the status as of now... How can they know or believe the story of Bessler in its originality?...

    Who fully trusted Bessler when he was alive?

    And now 300 years have passed after Bessler's death with no one successfully vindicating him and is it reasonable for us to expect wiki to believe BW?...

    Remember how much secretive behavior Bessler displayed in his entire life...

    Under all these situations, how can we expect others to believe???...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with you Suresh, but have to correct this;
    "I think the main reason why BW is being doubted is because the matter is being confused with PM... "

    Bessler himself declared he found a perpetual motion machine. It was his claim, not someone else's.
    After so many frauds, the doubt is pretty normal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This might as well be Bessler's greatest blunder... He must have done it unwittingly or unknowingly you can say... At that time what he could understand right he did... In the eagernessto promote his greatest finding he has done his best... So, in a sense, we can't blame him either... Then who is at fault?... Probably no one... At the end of it all we have a learning here... If we happen to present BW to the world we should avoid the phrase PM...

    And, there's another myth for correction here... We usually keep harping that when finally BW is revealed to the world school physics text books would have to be ammended accordingly about gravity and other relevant physics laws.... This may not happen so...

    ReplyDelete
  8. All right, I give up. You must be right, Bessler was a pervert!! Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have to look it up but I think that Bessler disgussed the term Perpetual Motion and said it wasn’t really perpetual because all things grow old and degenerate. He preferred to say it was a wheel that moved of itself. I’ll try to find the relevant text tomorrow.

      JC

      Delete
  9. He said both and herein lies the confusion...
    From the beginning this has been the main confusion among many...

    This is because BW appeared to function that way... As if it were not dependent on external energy source... The first two wheels not even required the initial push... And we, on our part, did not try to clarify this to the world in the manner it should have been... Because this has taken very strong Roots and mild mentionings didn't help much... The misunderstanding was prevailent in all sects be it the readers or even certain publishers, for that matter... Despite the passing of three centuries... And, this has percolated to even some commentors here...

    I have a very strong feeling that even Sir Issac Newton became it's victim... Well it appears so partly... People are very allergic to the term Perpetual Motion... And, whereevw Bessler articles appeared this term made its ugly appearance... And now, it has produced so many Roaring Doubting Kings of the jungle... No one would listen to us on this... Finally, it would take the big arm of the mainstream science to clear the mess...

    All this clearly goes to state as said by Yellow that the misunderstanding began at the originator level....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the term Perpetual Motion is detrimental to our cause and I have always preferred to use the term ‘Continuous Motion’ or Continuous Rotation’.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Does this calls for a change in title... Perpetual Motion: an ancient mystery solved???...

      Every one of us right from the time of bessler has contributed to the confusion...

      Should we address it as a self turning wheel?...

      The term continuous motion or rotation still appears to be linked to PM...

      Gravity converter... Gravity mill... Gravity assisted...

      Well, somehow the taboo needs to be banished...

      We are making the same mistake that Bessler made in describing the wheel...

      Clean power Generator... Pollution free energy generator... Motion accelerator... Free energy producer... Imbalanced wheel... Self rotating machine...


      We should drastically think of changing the name...

      Any other inputs?...

      Delete
    3. Suresh, Like it or not, Perpetual motion is what it is; you can't get away from it, no matter how hard you try, Sam

      Delete
  10. I still maintain my claim that the first bessler wheels were invented in 1711 and that they were based on a type of catapult that had a spring which worked the same way as the spring in a skeet thrower.
    I am gong to add to my claims here by saying that Johann Bessler had heavier than air flight technology worked out that was powered by a wheel and this is the reason why his ship was modeled from Ducks, if the ship got into trouble on the ocean then it would be capable of taking off, provided that the materials of it were light enough, which should not be a problem today if I can get lightweight space age materials to build it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RAF John, Do you see the A with bent crossbar seen in M.T. as a modified pantograph?

    ReplyDelete
  12. its a trigger, exactly like the masonic emblem and it works flawlessly

    ReplyDelete
  13. He definitely thought he found a PM. Telling otherwise is just baseless, when we know he gave his book this title; "Das Triumphierende Perpetuum Mobile". It seems that Karl also confirmed his claim.

    ReplyDelete
  14. John Collins, You are right. It is censorship! The scientific community has to suppress the proof that perpetual motion is possible, at all cost. For the simple fact, they can't explain how it was done. I think your book will become one of the most important books ever written, in the history of the earth. Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes RAF but it still requires more modification.

      Good point yellow.

      I hope you’re right Sam, I could do with the royalties on such a book! 🙂

      JC

      Delete
    2. They say that gravity cannot be used as a source of energy...

      But gravity is known to boost a space ship's acceleration which is termed as gravity assist or gravity sling shot...

      Earth's gravity keeps us from floating away into space...

      Gravity is used in hydro electricity production...

      There are other uses as well... For example; a simple take the case of a simple paper-weight...

      The question is, why they say gravity cannot be directly used for energy production stating it as a conservative force?...

      Well, they could be right...

      Gravity alone cannot be used to make a bessler wheel turn continuously...

      Use of some other additional supporting forces could be the solution...

      Like for example; inertia, CP, CF, angular momentum, etc., and, this alone may also not be adequate...

      The matter doesn't end here... A very special mechanical designing needs to be incoroporated to execute this idea successfully...

      And, Bessler could grasp this after a great struggle... And he ultimately came up with his running wheel...

      Despite having bessler to guide us still we aren't able to recreate this so far due to many varied reasons...

      One of which is our inability to correctly discern or form an idea by following his highly valuable clues...

      And, it won't be surprising if another 300 years period passes by without us making an headway...






      Delete
  15. I have to admit that catapult or trigger type of mechanism is a very good idea. The weights are free from the wheel and become external components during the flight. So if the wheel is heavy enough something may be achieved. It may be part of the solution. But, somehow, it still doesn't sound simple enough to me.

    Karl's comments point out something very simple. Not only Karl, Bessler also stressed how simple the design was.

    I suggest you to reevaluate your designs with the simplicity in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't think it is a catapult or any trigger type effect, Yellow...

    You are right about the simplicity involved...

    Just levers and weights in a game of unceasing movement...

    The key is in their secret designing and arrangement...

    The swinging is an important aspect...

    It creates that effect which can be somewhat related to the effects mentioned by you...

    ReplyDelete

Gottfried Bessler, a litttle speculation.

Following up my previous post, I’ve received a couple of emails pointing out that Gottfried Bessler, Johann’s brother, might be another pot...