Thursday, 19 July 2018

Simulate or Fabricate?

I moved house two years ago and took the opportunity to throw out most of my old bits and pieces of wheel experiments.  I had hoarded them thinking that I might want to go back at some point to revisit an earlier idea.  But then I realised that after almost 40 years of fabrication I had progressed to the point where I knew instinctively what would or wouldn’t be useful in a new design.  So I bought in new material and once I had my workshop up and running, earlier this year, I set to with renewed enthusiasm to build my latesy version of Bessler's wheel..

And that is my point; I have tinkered with simulations from time to time but have never had the same feedback that I get from actually handling the piecwes, and have dismissed them as a waste of time. Making parts, manipulating them, finding that sometimes they don’t work as you expected, or discovering new movements in the process, or  they inspire new thoughts and designs - you cannot beat actually building the wheels.  It generates enthusiasm for new designs - well it does for me.  BTW, I cannot imagine anyone who is not an incurable optimist ever solving this puzzle.  You need a 100 per cent positive attitude to find the answer.

The design I’m building has been more or less complete in my mind for a couple of years and I am sure that it would be difficult to build a simulation so an actual build is the best thing and anyway you would need to build it eventually just to prove you were right.  Maybe the simulation might indicate that it would not work because of some simple error in the input or the settings.

I’ve seen any number of comments about problems with a simulation and I simply don’t trust them. I’m sure that an expensive simulation software could predict the correct solution, but these off-the-shelf versions seem to me to be full of glitches and are not to be trusted.

Returning to my own build, I set out the design parameters and copied them onto the backboard (the wooden disc which will hold all the parts) and drilled the necessary holes in exactly the right places. I fitted the levers on their swivel posts.  The levers were precisely the correct length.....but when I manually rotated them, two of them touched two adjoining levers, interfering with their actions. Admittedly space was tight and I could have planned for them to have more room, but it is surprising how hard you try for extreme accuracy you can still overlook some small discrepancy in the position of for instance a swivel post.

In fact the accuracy of the positioning of the posts is not vital to success.  A millimetre in any direction would not affect the viability of the design.  So I drilled two new holes and corrected the problem.

It has been often stated that there is only one design that will work,  but is this true? I ask this for two reasons, firstly Bessler said he had several designs which would work, and secondly I am aware of at least one design which apparently works. I have seen the design on paper and I cannot say for sure if it will work, but it seems that a working model was made.  What I can say is that this design is different to mine and I do know that my design is the same as the one Bessler intended to pass on to us. This suggests that there is more than one way to use gravity as an enabler of continuous rotation.

I can see from my own design that it looks possible to create the same effect usng differenr mechanism designs.

So my preference is definitely for fabrication but I know many people swear by simulations and animations. 

JC





67 comments:

  1. John Collins, I think you are right. The hand is the cutting edge of the brain. A sim is useful after the fact. Especially for minimizing interference's in moving parts. Or for making improvements. Not for break troughs. My thinking is; only one design will work, but I could be wrong. Sam

    ReplyDelete
  2. A simulation will be mistrusted. A perpetual motion machine is so unbelievable and wonderful that even Bessler was unable to convince people while he builds four of them.

    Only the unveiling and explanation of the internal design will encourage people to think, after which they will eventually understand why the solution is so incredibly simple.

    It is my strong belief that there is only one design that will match the criteria to make it work. It will have a unique geometrical and mathematical beauty. One of the reasons why it so hard to find. If there where multiple “needles”, someone should have found one already and it would not have to match Bessler’s clues.

    If there are multiple solutions then it is assumable that Bessler found the simplest one.

    Marinus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Marinus, there is probably only one solution.

      JC

      Delete
  3. RAF I have been BUILDING Bessler wheel projects for the past 3 years --5 days/week/2-3 hours each day and can confidently say what does NOT work!! Even so--learning in the negative is still learning!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. RAF Unlike Bessler's wheel, there needs to be balance between our experimental builds and contemplation and reflection on the very GENEROUS clues and drawings Mr. Bessler provides us with our experimental results.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RAF Also, in DAS TRIUMPH......(low quotes p. 264) Bessler cautions against using pure REASON!! (emphasis his).

    ReplyDelete
  6. RAF In Apologia Poetica a medium quote says"The Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise because it worked on quite DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES!! I.E.,there is more than One design by which to hit pay dirt! Your comments, John?

    ReplyDelete
  7. RAF Sorry for typing in spurts folks. I type slowly and get "timed out" and so all gets erased. SAM---Don't trouble yourself with lead weights. Our wheels are small--mine is 40 inches dia. Over the years, have found "fender washers" are perfect for all experiments. these steel washers are 2mm. thick, 2 inch dia., with 1/2 inch hole and weigh 0.4 ounces. the 1/2" wide blue spring steel strips fit nicely in the hole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mentioned the possibility of more than one solution to Bessler’s wheel because I was aware of Bessler’s comments and as I said in my blog, there is possibly another solution out there which is reported to work. However the design on paper does not match anything I have found about Bessler’s wheel, although there are features that might appear slightly similar. My personal opinion about Bessler’s words is thst he was not talking accurately about the basic concept so much as using different sizes and materials. He claimed to be able to make slow and fast wheels with more ir less power, so they could be the different designs he mentioned. Also bear in mind the vagaries of translating 18th C German into modern English.

      On balance therefore I believe there is only one basic concept which will work, but there maybe more than one way to activate it.

      JC

      Delete
  8. RAF, Yes, washers are good. I like the grade 8 washers, they are very precision. I just don't know what he means by different principles, I'm fairly certain that one thing and only one thing will work. That's why it's been so difficult to figure out. And I don't it can be done with a sim. The only way is to get out a hack saw and a bunch of files. Sam

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think Bessler used the same concept in different designs. There must be a core concept, an idea. He probably played with that idea using different mechanisms.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think one like this should be possible, after I filmed this I put weights on the cross and the whole thing keeled over, I am working on rebuilding it to get it working.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOUSDSnNftk

    ReplyDelete
  11. In my humble opinion, there is more than one way to do this, and his different wheels were the demonstration of that statement as a fact. The basic principle could be the same, but the process that achieved the end result was different, and sounded that way. The RPM of the different wheels is the first clue. A 12 ft wheel turning at 26 RPM has a tremendous amount of momentum and when I have turned my 8 ft wheel at 26 RPM is quite frankly a scary event. A 12 ft wheel will be even more massive and inherent in its central effect. Just my opinion...... Don't leave us Sunresh we all value your enthusiasm and obvious insights

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks... graviGrav...but you are always getting my name wrong... You value me or we?... I am not sure about Sam, RAF and Marinus...

    I for one wud vouch for the single core principle... And, the same mechanism, everywhere... Only one solution... One concept...

    The one seen by Karl... We should stick to it... Most clues point to this...

    The basic components are weights and levers... Arranged symetrically...

    Do you have several mechanisms in an internal combustion engine?... I mean the ones we use in our automobiles...

    Do you have several mechanisms in electic motors?...

    What Bessler meant, for increasing or reducing wheel speed, is that it can be achieved by change in the number of weights by deploying four, eight or sixteen weights as may be deemed necessary...

    Let us not take it as change of mechanism...

    Take it from me..No multiple solutions...

    By the way, how is wheel progress going on?...

    Good Day...

    ReplyDelete
  13. When I discovered the story of Bessler for the first time, now eleven years ago, I first thought it was a hoax. But learning that it really happened, made me wonder. One of the first things that intrigued me was the speed of his wheels. For his consecutive wheels it was getting slower. Why does he not increase the speed of his consecutive wheels? That would be more impressive.

    The simple answer to that is that he can’t. Nature (gravity) does not permit that. We all know that the rate of falling is independent of the mass but dependent on the route travelled. In a simple pendulum the swing time is determined by the length of the pendulum and not by its mass.

    Therefore it is logical to assume that this will also apply for Bessler’s wheel. If he wants to make his wheels run faster than he must build them smaller. But then he would have less room for putting in weight. And since the power of the wheel will probably be the product of speed and mass, a smaller wheel will have less power. And that would be less impressive.

    I predict that the speed of the wheel will be independent off its mass but will be dependent on its radius only.
    (Sorry Suresh, I am not looking for a conflict, I am just venting my mind.)

    Marinus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marinus, Yes, I read about Bessler's wheel 54 years ago. But, the implication was that not only did it not work, it couldn't work. They very conveniently left out the fact that the wheel would self start, in either direction under load.
      I agree the wheel speed is limited to the acceleration of gravity in a curved path, what ever that would be, (no load). A larger wheel would have more torque. Sam

      Delete
    2. I was born around that time (1963). One thing we can be sure of is that as long as you don't find it you have a hobby for life. :)

      Marinus

      Delete
  14. Bessler's 12 feet wheel ran half the speed of his three feet wheel... This is something to do with the weights and levers configuration... For the purpose of load or work to be done... Or for the purpose of moving in either direction... It is common knowledge that more the effort(weights) more will be the work and consequently the speed...

    Powerfully built cars travel fast... The more a rocket burns fuel the faster it is... Logically, the more weights involved the more power which can be turned to speed...

    With just two weights like in a see-saw the wheel can't be expected to rotate fast... When you increase the cross bars the speed increases too... The faster the weights fall the faster it will rotate...

    Let us not dwell too deep into calculations and measurements... I am an illiterate actually... So was Bessler... If you discuss more at micro level I may not be able to follow... Math and physics are not my cup of tea... I have my own limitations... If I continue here I may make mistakes due to lack of basic education...it is for the academicians to debate...One thing I am very sure is that there is only one solution and it involves a very symetrical arrangement of lever-weight systems... You are talking of wheel size... But actually, the weights or pendulums have too many short cuts in their path for instance the swinging...

    Bessler Wheel invention is not for the highly literate to achieve... Just for persons with sound common sense and simple logic...

    I may be wrong when I explain with examples but not when I claim about the wheel's internal secret... The wheel is true... People are not able to recreate the same because of their way of approach... Natural approach is required... You guys are too qualified modernly speaking... It requires someone like Sir Newton... getting inspiration from an Apple's fall... simple thinking is the key... If you go by the book it won't happen... Pls note I am not against books...

    You know why I get irritated when someone asks abruptly if I possess a working wheel?...

    In my view, they are unable to see the wisdom in my talk... They are not able to decide whom or what to believe... Too much cleverness can mar natural judgement... they fail to understand or lack the patience to comprehend that a wheel as simple as BW can be conceived in mind... I am not saying that everything you conceive in mind can be relied... It has to be finely refined... Refined till the desired result is achieved... And then you have the clues to compare... As long as this is not understood by an individual how do you expect him to solve BW... So let us not complicate the matter by going into science too deeply... BW can be achieved with simple logic... It is too simple... Ken used to complicate matter by adding pulleys...

    There is this proper designing of the lever-weight system(pendulum) which is the most critical part... And ironically, no one seems to discuss about it... Don't you think this is very strange... That secret movement inside...

    Tell me how many people genuinely talk about it... It is only these two things that should span the lime light... Isn't it...

    We are nowhere, dear...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow Suresh, you are opening up a bit about your thoughts. Good to see. I have been exploring a pendulum (weight/lever) approach for years. Mainly I stopped building after learning much about the behavior of the swing, identifying positive and negative traits about the motion. This swing and the accompanying CF is what I refer to as the prime mover. I only build and experiment with the prime mover at this time. While simple in it's movement, it has actually been difficult to build. One thing I will say, at least for a multi-pendulum wheel, is the swing has to take place around the 6pm position. At this spot the temporary lack of weight during the free fall does not adversely affect the balance of the wheel.

      Delete
  15. Suresh, I've always tried to explain how my wheel might work, But no one want's to know. I doubt if they really care how yours works either. Sam

    ReplyDelete
  16. Many still don't care to know about Bessler...
    It is better to leave them alone... As I had stated earlier, there is really no point in trying to convince such persons...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bessler's wheels all used a hitherto unknown physical effect. Simulations are not all that effective because the (new discovered) effect that the wheels use is not yet known and therefore not taken into account in simulation software. Simulations only make sense to predict known effects.
    In my opinion there will be countless different designs possible, all based on the same effect.
    ovaron

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you Suresh for your good words and thoughts. The length of the pendulum or lever will determine the pulse of it.... is that correct? So one could be in the center or on the perimeter

    ReplyDelete
  19. You are right... And, all pendulums are fitted on the inner circumference or perimeter...

    You have got to ensure they have their own separate space or quadrants... To prevent inter-clashing amongst them...

    ReplyDelete
  20. John, is there a way to search for the Suresh posts over the years?

    Suresh, is my understanding correct, that you believe the number of weights is an even number?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Gravittea, but there is no way of searching through any comments other than reading every one of them to find a certain one.. I don’t know how many there have been over the years but it must run into thousands.

      JC

      Delete
  21. Suresh, I think you mentioned 12 pendulums, right? If I draw a circle with 12 pendulums, there are 7 below the center line, and 5 above. Doesn't that make the wheel bottom heavy? Or, am I missing some thing? Sam

    ReplyDelete
  22. I also mentioned eight as well as 12... To begin with why not select the eight idea... Even if you go for the 12 idea it still can be accommodated...

    Divide the circle in such a way that the pendulums don't clash with one another... Adopt back to back method...

    If you ask me, one can deploy as many pendulums as he wants on a common axle using the above method... Just make sure the total is in even number...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, lets do 8. Now you have 5 pendulums below the center, and 3 above. I ask you again; doesn't that make the wheel bottom heavy???
      Please explain to me how will that ever work? Sam

      Delete
    2. If you make the wheel large enough, so the gyroscopic affect is reduced, you can have the pendulums swing perpendicular to the rotation of the wheel (some would say along the z-axis). This approach has many advantages.

      Delete
  23. RAF Does Mr. Bessler ever call his swinging weights pendulums? I have not seen that he ever did. Thats because his swinging weights do not have fixed pivot points, like pendulums do,because they are not anchored to the wheel disc.

    ReplyDelete
  24. RAF They are mounted on the mechanism on the crossbars so the weight pivots are moving with respect to the wheel disc; the crossbars pivot on the axle.These features do not describe pendulums but swinging weights. Your thoughts, John ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can’t tell you what I think RAF, because my design is different. I have only five mechanisms and I have designed a one way wheel, not a two way wheel such as the Merseberg and the Kassel wheel. The only description of the number of weights, and it was an estimate which was assumed from the sound of ABOUT eight weights landing GENTLY on the side towards which the wheel turned and it was taken from the Kassel wheel.

      My opinion of the word “cross-bar” is that it is a distracting label which in my opinion means something else. Bessler was full of textual sleight-of-hand but he also provided two or more ways of deciphering his clues

      Sorry for the upper case letters but I wanted to draw attention to certain aspects of people’s designs which I think are flawed by an assumption which I think will not help them to a solution.

      I have no wish to poor cold water on other people’s theories when I haven’t said anything about mine, but I also worry thst if mine are wrong and you guys are working with the wrong information we will never get to the truth.😀

      Delete
  25. Divide further by fixing four on each wheel frame... That would be two wheel frames on the same axle, back to back, but working singularly...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alright, now we are down to 4. That leaves 3 below the axle and one above, Still bottom heavy. Want to go for two? Sam

      Delete
  26. I think you are giving some of the translations too much attention. The swinging word is just one interpretation of Bessler's original text.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In my opinion, "Schwung" is not the same word as "Schwingen". The former used by Bessler was most likely intended to mean "impetus" or "momentum", while the latter (not mentioned by Bessler) would mean "swinging".

    On the contrary Bessler wrote that his wheel was driven by "preponderance" (Def: "being greater in number or quantity"). By simply counting the number of weights/levers going up/down in the MT drawings, it is possible to agree that this was one of Bessler's basic messages in plain sight. Studying MT would of course be the best place to look for the secret, and to understand Bessler and try to see things from his actual perspective.

    Best
    ØR

    ReplyDelete
  28. John I agree
    I think cross-bar is either 'crossed bars' ie a scissor, or more likely the parallelogram in the toys
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bessler was not someone who would have left any clues behind. He was rightly paranoid.
    I really don't think there are any drawings in MT showing a part of the actual design.


    John, the verification process for the comments is an overkill. I don't remember how many pictures I clicked before publishing a comment. If possible, please tone it down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yellow, I did not think there was a verification process. I disabled it in settings several months ago to see if it was needed. Can you tell me how it appears? I just need to check what is going on.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I have to click dozens of images.

      Delete
  30. The actual secret lies in the arrangement of weights and the designing of the lever-weight system... Which is, by the way, a great secret which can take years... I have put you on the initial right track... Now you should yourself workout the rest...

    TIPS:

    Eight weights need to be fitted at equidistant points both frame combined... That would appear differently than you have explained...

    Then it wouldn't be bottom heavy but one side heavy... how they function is another protected secret which you should be able to to visualize yourself... And this entirely depends on how you design the lever-weight system...

    All the weights should move in same direction, one after another... The weights on the ascending side should be nearer to axle as they go up... Swinging begins at the Zenith...
    Springs should help pendulums to swing fast...
    When you view the entire inner structure it should look quite artful... The movement inside should be amazing... Particularly, the speeding weights on the ascending side... A bit noisy too... You need to to be honest in your attitude... Your motive shouldn't be just to criticize this approach... If you don't understand or get the components property designed you would become desperate and lose patience and start unbelieving... It would take just a few days to complete the entire process... I could have been more helpful if you were nearby... I am actually looking for a sincere partner who is like minded... You seem a little different... You don't possess a discerning vision... You outrightly attack the very person who holds the key... This is what I have observed about you... You don't realize that BW is no more a mystery from my statements so far... You aren't protecting my rights... I am more worried about losing the secret... Lever holds a great secret and so does a weight... This explains why Bessler concealed a weight with a handkerchief... More than 50 percent clues can be seen in the Mt drawings... Believe me... You may not really know you are already 25 percent on the right track... You seem confused because you have not worked out how the inner components coordinate... Till then you'll not only remain skeptical but also a distractor... You won't act in or for the larger interests... Bessler might have been a paranoid but when it comes to large heartedness he is not less... He has left 50 percent clues in the draiwings and the rest in his writings... The portaits hold some clues, too... Yellow is not aware of this in entirety... by simply going though all the pictures of the drawings one can, with a diserning eye, make out the movement... I should only say that you work out the rest being thoroughly confident you already hold 25 percent clues... I find Quazgo and Gravittea more matured here... don't mind my language...

    It is an honest man's opinion...

    Good day

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no problem with your language Suresh and I believe you are sincere. We all tend to think each is on the right track and who knows, one or more of us might be? Good luck.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Thanks, JC sir...

      I always try to point out at the components designing aspect which, in my view, happens to be the main setback...

      We often discuss a lot about number of weights, rods, energy source, different principles or solutions, etc.,... But not much about the secret movement inside, the path followed by weights, the lever designing which is crucial and a deciding factor... We can't be so ignorant about it...

      My constant endeavor is to just bring an awareness amongst us about these major hidden issues...

      Appropriate designing of inner components and their right positioning will aid the wheel in general to gain maximum advantage from gravity as well as to fight off its ill effects...

      Another thing which needs clarification is that in the case of Bessler's first wheel we can't say for sure that it didn't make eight banging sounds just because there is no evidence...

      Delete
    3. Maybe I don't have the big picture. But, it seams to me, there is a problem with using pendulums-----------------Sam

      Delete
    4. Forget it--------------------------------------Sam

      Delete
    5. My vision ...

      Weights are paired in dumb-bell fashion, with each weight on opposite sides of the wheel. The weight pairs are allowed to slide along the radial line. When one weight moves inward, the opposite weight moves outward, and vice versa.

      Pendulums are equally distributed around the wheel, along the same radial lines as the weight pairs. The pivot point of each pendulum is connected to one side of a teeter-totter type lever. The other side of the lever is connected to the rod connecting the weight pairs. Think of the Milkovic Two Stage Oscillator.

      Only the pendulum at 6pm is allowed to swing, and as it does, it pulls down its side of the lever, raising the other side of the lever. As the lever raises, it raises the weight pair. The weight at 6pm is moved inward and the weight at 12pm is moved outward. Overbalance is created without any movement of the wheel.

      No matter how slowly the wheel turns, or is allowed to turn, when the pendulum at 6pm fires, it has enough CF to raise the weight pair and maintain overbalance. As the wheel rotates faster and faster, the CF acting on the pendulum bob increases, thus increasing the CF the pendulum creates.

      Delete
    6. Sounds good. Does it have to be a pendulum? What happens after it turns 180 degrees? Do you turn the CF off some way? How many pairs of weights are there? I think you are raising the weights at the right time. Also, is the leverage one to one? Anyway, good luck with it, Sam

      Delete
    7. Yes pendulums are needed with this design. Are you familiar with the Milkovic Two Stage Oscillator?

      The most basic configuration would include one pair of weights, one on each side of the wheel, and connected with a rod. A 2SO would be located at each side of the wheel next to each weight, or perhaps just inward our outward of the weight. Every 180 degrees of rotation, a 2SO would be at 6pm and when the pendulum drops, the CF pulls down one side of the lever, raising the other side and thus raising the weight pair.

      Adding more more pair would create a cross looking apparatus. By doing this, there would always be overbalance. I hope my description make sense. I will post a pic on bw.com and provide a link to it. I have not actually built a complete wheel as I am testing variations of the 2SO with a single weight pair.
      Rick

      Delete
    8. Rick, I'm sort of catching on--------- I think I get the sense of it. You just have to try it and see, what happens, Sam

      Delete
    9. Rick,
      I don't know the best point to shift the slider(s). It might be 9 to 3. If I could ask Bessler one question, that would be it! So; you have to consider both possibilities. Good luck with it, Sam

      Delete
  31. RAF Greetings John and thanks for your views. In Bessler,s original texts,do you see das schwingen von gewichten or schwung von gewichten ? ( schwung doesn't translate)but looks like the past tense of schwingen.Also--do you see querbalken for crossbar in A.P. page 355--(If I arrange to have just one crossbar) ? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  32. RAF I got a better translator and schwung means energy of motion( or active swinging).

    ReplyDelete
  33. RAF John, can you say for sure when Bessler changed his name to Orffyre? Could it have been about 1712?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was during 1711. In a Streider’s infamous account of Bessler he said he began to use the name Orffyreus. It is said that some people thought he was likening himself to Orpheus the legendary musician who could charm the birds people and even stones. But they were not aware of Bessler’s initiating code indicator. Having said that there are errors in Streider’s account so it might have been 1712.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John Collins, As you may know I like the idea of slides, reff. MT-15. If you put the alphabet in a circle and a slider rotating around inside of the circle, with one end of it designated Bessler and the other designated the Orffyre end; then as it rotated the one end would always spell out Bessler and the other end would always spell out Orffyre. Maybe that's what gave him the idea of it. I.E., the sliders are always swapping ends. Anyway it's just an idea, Sam

      Delete
  34. RAF Thanks a bunch John! So the change could have about or at the time of his DISCOVERY , before his first showing. This fits well with my theory for this peculiar change.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I was just looking at the links supplied at http://www.besslerwheel.com/timeline.html. The following is a link talking about the testing of the first wheel at Gera. By the way, I was amazed to discover that the wheel at Gera was 6½ ft! I had gotten the impression it was 3 ft or something like that. Incredible that his first wheel was so huge!:

    "A total of 14 signatures attest to the following statements:

    The long sought after and desired Perpetuum Mobile has been invented and constructed recently, through God's grace, here in Gera. It is a unique and highly useful machine that rotates without any weights, wind, water, or spring mechanisms. It has its own Motus Perpetuum that not only maintains, moves, and turns it around continuously, but it is also able to easily drive other machines for which a great force is necessary, such as waterworks and mills...
    "

    Notice that they proclaim that no weights were used. Hmm, then what caused it to rotate? Forgive me if this has already been discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Quazgaa Seeso, I think he meant clock weights, like on an old grand father clock. The weights hang down and run the clock for a week. Then have to be raised back up. Sam

    ReplyDelete
  37. RAF A very likely influence on Mr. Bessler: As clockmaker Bessler may have discovered the cross-beat escapement built by Jost Burgi, the craftsman/scholar employed by William IV, Landgrave of Hesse- Kassel. His escapement was invented about 1584-1586 and employed weight pairs and SPRINGY balance arms.( see cross-beat escapement on youtube)

    ReplyDelete
  38. RAF One mistake on youtube is showing the balance arms (levers)rigid instead of springy.The flexing of the levers provides an impulse(impetus) for the return in the opposite direction.Pendulums with rigid levers are mechanically "dead" whereas swinging weights on springy levers are mechanically "alive" and have impetus and momentum. Jost Burgi was said to be "the most excellent mechanical engineer of his generation"!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. FTA of Suresh Kumar - a regular commentator on this blog wishes to contact you and asks if you could email me so I can pass on your email address to him so he can communicate directly with you, if you are willing. Thank you.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  40. Test mail sent to jcollins@free-energy.co.uk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Suresh. I’ve passed your email on. He should be making contact soon.

      JC

      Delete

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...