Sunday, 18 August 2019

The Huge Potential in Bessler’s Wheel.

It was confirmed in writing on several occasions that Bessler’s wheel could lift a chest of stones weighting 70 pounds from the Kassel castle yard to the roof.  The Kassel wheel could turn in either direction at 26 rpm unloaded, and 20 rpm when lifting the heavy chest.  The Merseburg wheel could  perform a similar task and could achieve 50 rpm.  Given that Bessler said he could design wheels with different outputs, either in speed, lifting ability and/or size, and suggested running several wheels on one axle, I am convinced that the wheel could be modified, improved and made larger and would be a perfect electricity generator- despite all those who claim a poor output of no value.

For those who have tried to estimate the output of the wheels, in my opinion it’s a pointless task, because we have used the speed of two of the bidirectional wheels and they may have been slowed down by the counter-rotating ability.  How much weight each used, how many, how the two wheels differed in their design?  Yes we can make a rough estimate taking into account the weight of stones lifted, the speed of the lift, and the size of the axle and even the effect of the pulley system, but it is still a guess based on nothing else.

The truth is we simply don’t have any idea of the potential, but to me it seems blindingly obvious that such a machine capable of a simple demonstration of its lifting power could easily increase its lift capability by ten-fold by simply increasing its size and its internal weighting system. With the modern development techniques its efficiency could be increased by an unknown amount, but it would be considerable.

Whether an electric generator would be best suited for individual residences or a small group, or larger numbers only time will tell, but it will come.  ‘The three major categories of energy for electricity generation are fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), nuclear energy, and renewable energy sources. Most electricity is generated with steam turbines using fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, and solar thermal energy'.

Below is a picture of a modern steam turbine generator, powered by nuclear power.  It can be powered by fossil fuel such as coal, gas or oil.

 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Modern_Steam_Turbine_Generator.jpg/1200px-Modern_Steam_Turbine_Generator.jpg

Note the size of the operator compared to the device.  I can easily imagine a giant Bessler wheel consisting of many wheels in series mounted on a single axle of a similar size.  A typical power plant such as the one above rotates at 1800 - 3600 rpm, over 100 times faster than Bessler's Kassel wheel when under load.  Does that rule it out?  No, because a modern windmill generator turns at 30 - 60 rpm.  It connects the low speed shaft to a high speed shaft via a gearbox and increases the rotational speed from 30 - 60 rotations per minute to about 1000-1800; this is the rpm speed required by most generators to produce electricity. The gear box is a costly and extremely heavy part of the wind turbine. but an essential one.

So Bessler's wheel would have to be big enough to increase its slow speed, say 50rpm, up to 1000 -1800 rpm, but given a gearbox similar to those in use in the windmills, I believe such a system could be adapted to a large Bessler wheel, or series.

The modern windmill generator, the GE 1.5 megawatt model, for example, consists of three blades, each 116 feet in length atop a 212 foot tower, giving a total height of 328 feet. and a total width of about over 200 feet!  Surely we could construct something closer to the size of the machine in the picture above which as a Bessler wheel could easily generate as much electricity but within a building and at a far cheaper cost, and with much greater reliability than the windmills?

Each 2MW windmill costs $3 - $4 million installed! Each gear box costs more than $150,000. There are around 1,200 incidents of gearbox failures reported each year – one failure per 145 turbines.  There are 341000 windmills to date and more coming on stream before the end of 2019.  In the GE 1.5-megawatt model, the nacelle alone weighs more than 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs more than 36 tons, and the tower itself weighs about 71 tons — a total weight of 164 tons.  The gearbox in the largest windmill generator weighs 86 tonnes it is the largest wind turbine gearbox ever built.

Windmills are reliant on the right wind speed, too strong and they're locked down, to weak and they won't turn.  When the gearbox fails it can take up two months for repair and costs are usually around $100,000.  It may use the wind to drive it but you can hardly call it free energy.

Bessler said his wheel would run winter and summer, rain or shine. 

JC

89 comments:

  1. John,apart from all these aspects there is the health issue.
    Apparently the low frequency pulsating pressure vibrations can cause ill health,so much so that some farmers have move away from the vicinity to escape this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm almost finished reading Ken's Bessler book and he tells how it might have been possible to use "super wheels" to power Karl's pet project which involved keeping the water flowing down the stone steps of a long cascade constructed behind his castle. Ken calculates that to pump water up the 300 foot elevation to the Hercules tower spout at the top from the lake at the bottom of the cascade at the rate of 1,000 gallons per minute would have required about a dozen of the super wheels which together would have produced about 80 kilowatts of power.

    One could mount three of these super wheels on a single large axle and then a total of four such axles would be required for the job. Each axle would then directly power a single piston type pump that would send water up through an elevation of 75 feet at the required rate of 1,000 gallons per minute.

    The first axle pump would be located near the lake's surface and would send the water up 75 feet to a reservoir tank that supplied the second axle pump. That second axle pump would then send the water up another 75 feet to another reservoir tank that supplied a third axle pump located at an elevation of 150 feet. That third axle pump would then send the water up another 75 feet to another reservoir tank that supplied the fourth and last axle pump located at an elevation of 225 feet. Finally, that fourth axle pump would send the water up the last 75 feet to the tower's spout at an elevation of 300 feet above the lake for release. As long as the water temperature was above freezing, Karl could have had his cascade flowing continuously night and day thoughout the year.

    The problem with this system is that each of the super wheels needed to be about 40 feet in diameter and have eight weights and levers each of which weighed over 1,000 pounds! With three super wheels on each axle, the total weight each axle would have had to support would have been at least 24,000 pounds or 12 tons since it would also have to support the extra weight of itself plus the framework, made either of wood or metal, that held the levers and their many springs and coordinating chains! The cost would have been enormous, but it does sound technically feasible.

    Maybe once replicas of Bessler's wheels start to appear, the German citizens of the state of Saxony will supply the tax money to fund the completion of this project. It would certainly help to attract the tourists and their money to the region which would eventually pay for the project and its maintenance. It could become a Bessler wheel theme park with rides for the kids all powered by Bessler wheels!

    Daniel H.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Each of those three super wheels mounted next to each other on a single large axle would have been about the same diameter and thickness as this early Ferris wheel except they would have eight radials instead of the ten shown in the photo. There would be no need for the vertical axle supports that an above ground Ferris wheel needs because the axle of Bessler's triplet of super wheels would be held by bearings at ground level with the lower 20 feet of the drum's radius hidden in a stone lined underground pit. The upper, above ground 20 feet of the drum would have been enclosed in some wooden structure to protect it from the weather and keep rain from flooding out the pit. Four of these triplets would be needed at every 75 feet of elevation starting at the level of the lake, but they would be located several hundred feet away from each other horizontally along the length of the cascade. The four structures could have been carefully located so as to hide them behind the surrounding trees and visitors to Karl's cascade might not have even been aware of their presence.

      https://i2.wp.com/showmensmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Museum-Ferris-Wheel-Article.jpg?w=773

      Daniel H.

      Delete
    2. At 8.34 lbs per gallon of water, supplying the spout in the Hercules tower with 1,000 gallons per minute means those dozen super wheels would have to lift a mass of 8,340 lbs or 4.17 tons of water through a vertical distance of 300 feet every minute! No wonder a dozen super wheels would be needed! If the Kassel wheel's maximum power was only 50 watts, then the 80 kilowatts or 80,000 watts of the dozen super wheels needed for Karl's cascade would have been 1600 times as powerful as the Kassel wheel!

      Delete
    3. Here's an aerial view I found of Karl's cascade which is still in existence and occasionally operational. The water spout is located at the top of the photo and at the base of the pointed structure with the statue of Hercules on top of it. The lake that the water from the cascade drains into is at the bottom. Karl's castle was located below where the lake is in the photo, but no longer exists.

      https://c8.alamy.com/comp/C03GFD/aerial-view-octagon-building-with-hercules-statue-and-cascades-bergpark-C03GFD.jpg

      Daniel H.

      Delete
    4. Nice image, Daniel. From the air, it looks like flat land, but there is, as you say, a rise of hundreds of feet from the lake to the tower. Plenty of nearby trees to hide those super wheels!

      Delete
    5. Here's what a flow rate of about 500 gallons per minute looks like. So, using the super wheels to irrigate Karl's cascade would have resulted in about double this constantly gushing out of the spout at the octagon building.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phM0VhaCaj4

      It would have produced an impressive effect and more so because no fuel would have been required for the pumps!

      Delete
    6. LOL! Good thing the count wasn't stupid enough to use his own money to buy the "secret" of Bessler's hoaxed wheels! Imagine what would have happened if he'd coughed up the 100,000 thalers demanded and also convinced some of his rich noblemen buddies to chip in even more to make all those "super wheels" to power his cascade promising them that it would attract lots of new business to the area and help them make bundles of tax money as a result. When the day came to release the brakes and get the water pumping up the hill, nothing would have happened! They would then have called on Bessler to check out the glitch only to learn that he was nowhere to be found. Next they would discover that the previous night Bessler's entire family had quietly moved out of the count's castle and no one knew where they were. Bessler and company would all be headed toward the Saxony border with their sacks of loot and their horses pulling their coaches at a full gallop. To keep as much of it as possible, Bessler would have gotten the cheapest labor he could find to slap up some giant fake wheels on the hillside along with some cheap plumbing to interconnect them. Just a low cost prop to slip the count and his fellow rich friends a sleeping pill while he planned his escape with the their "investments". Imagine what a sap Karl would have felt like and what his buddies would have thought of him for roping them into the scam. He would have been the laughing stock of all Europe and probably committed suicide to end his shame. Meanwhile, Bessler and his relatives would be using the money he stole to live like royalty and also start some delusional version of Christianity he dreamed up with the hope that he could rake in even more money with it in the future from the suckers in a new part of Europe!

      The Realist

      Delete
    7. Anonymous realist just curious what do you believe in and what do you do for a living?

      Delete
    8. I only believe in things that are real. That includes money, preferably gold and not government paper or promisory notes, sex, preferably with beautiful young women who know how to use birth control, and science, preferably by people that actually went to a university to learn it and know what they are talking about and make sense. Everything else such as art, media, politics, religion, and crank subjects like angels, ghosts, extraterrestrials, flying saucers, haunted houses, 99% of the internet, perpetual motion machines, and strange creatures (Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, vampires, werewolves, etc.) is just a giant pile of delusional BS whose pursuit will only waste a person's one and only life on planet Earth. For a living I make investments that have a proven track record of providing lucrative financial returns. I'm often asked for investment advice and will gladly give it...for a fee, that is! Feeling charitable, however, I'll give everyone here some free advice now. GET OUT of the stock market before the big crash comes next year! Buy as much gold as you can afford and keep it hidden somewhere in your home. Make sure you are armed and can protect it. Also make sure you have a supply of food and medicines stashed away so when the supermarkets close down and are looted, you will be prepared. There are some really rough financial times coming! You'll know they are about to hit when all of the "experts" on tv are "optimistic" about the future! That's their way of keeping suckers buying into the market while they are all quietly selling off their shares and are doing exactly what I'm recommending here.

      The Realist

      Delete
    9. Now I understand why you're so afraid you are afraid of change you like things just the way they are you already know it's possible thank you for your honest assessment of Who and what you are.

      Delete
    10. The only thing I'm afraid of is becoming delusional like about 99% of the suckers in the US and, as a result, not keeping my focus on accumulating as much wealth as possible!

      The Realist

      Delete
    11. You forgot to add using your own name coward!

      Delete
    12. Maybe he decided to use a fake name for the same reasons you did?

      Delete
    13. But a realist would know that Bessler wouldn't get payed until the buyer had a working replication! So, the realist turns out to be unrealistic. If you read up, you will notice that this was the deal, specifically designed to avoid you imaginary scenario. Just that this deal was designed 300 years prior to your scenario.

      Best
      ØR

      Delete
    14. I don't think Bessler was willing to wait to get paid until after the buyer replicated his wheel. As I understand it, upon the full and immediate payment, the buyer would be given Bessler's then current wheel and, if it did not prove to be genuine, his money would be refunded and he could cut Bessler's head off as punishment for trying to swindle him. No one makes an offer like that if they don't have the real thing.

      Delete
  3. RAF John, Is the correct address for pictures:www.free-energy.co.uk? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John, If it will help I think I can estimate what power the wheel is capable of for each pair of weights.
    If you are open and interested I can give you an exact figure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can't speak for other parts of the country (USA), but when I drive through Illinois I pass through several windmill farms with windmills stretching out as far as you can see. Most often they are never turning, or some at times I seem some are and some aren't - seems like a big waste of money to me. I can just image how it would be if huge Bessler Wheels were scattered across the country side, always turning, always generating electricity. What a wonderful place it could be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I agree they are a big waste of money. I read one estimate that it takes about 11,000 of those wind turbines to replace a single electric power plant! I think, however, that it will eventually be solar panel farms scattered across the country side rather than Bessler wheels. They need to get the efficiency of the panels improved and some simple means of making sure the sun is alway directly hitting them for maximum power. They won't work on cloudy days that well or at all at night, but excess unused power when they do work can be stored in lithium batteries to be tapped then. And, there's always the possibility that a breakthrough will be made that makes hydrogen fusion reactors practical. We can survive without Bessler's wheels, but I still want to see them duplicated so we know how they worked and hopefully can improve them. If that can be done, then maybe they could become practical sources of power someday.

      Delete
  6. Bessler Wheels don't need to be fast, they just need lots of torque. I would trade speed for torque, and upconvert using gears if needed. I guess until we have a working model we won't how the speed of the wheel affects (helps or hinders) the generation of torque. In the design in envision, slower is better, as it gives time for the prime mover to do its thing. A faster turning wheel means the internal mechanisms have to work faster, or another way to look at it is, there is less time for the internal mechanisms to do their thing. However, a faster turning wheel produces more CF, and that may be a necessary ingredient. Time will tell I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RAF John, is the correct address for sending pictures: www.free-energy.co.uk ? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might find that John has no interest in receiving any wheel design pictures from you, RAF. The reason is that, if his own design works, then you could claim you provided him with some of it and should also share the credit. I don't think he's interested in risking that.

      Delete
    2. Yes, that is right, I know it might seem selfish but it’s true, you have to consider the ramifications of accepting other people’s designs, even if you don’t use them. I’m happy to share everything once I have succeeded but there is something about being the first.

      JC

      Delete
  8. John it's time to throw us another bone to keep our interest. What do you say?

    ReplyDelete
  9. John, you said before in a recent previous post that you would be posting blog posts on individuals and their wheels. Of course, you then immediately posted a blog for Ken Behrendt's wheel, which he didn't even physically build. It won't even work either because, the sine of the angle of the direction of the center of gravity from the axle, multiplied by the mg of the weights of the wheel, is insufficient with 4 pound weights to lift a direct mg load of several pounds. If Ken's wheel was truly the Gera wheel as he claims, it should have a force that would easily lift that load, but it does not. Yet, you gave him an entire blog post for a nonworkable wheel, despite the many wheels that physically exist and do/did work. It would be a good idea that, if you're going to post blogs for crappy computer simulation style wheels, you should at least also post blogs for actual builds. There is, for example, the Asa Jackson wheel, the bidirectional Sequeen (Oh Seok Kyun) wheel (search youtube), the Buzzsaw wheel of 1909, and so on and so on. After all, if it works, who cares if it is Bessler's exact wheel? For example, Wagner pointed out that, in the Draschwitz wheel, there were no weights being lifted in the wheel. Nothing was to be seen! Bessler then actually agreed with him in his response to Wagner, saying that this was because, in comparison to the former Gera wheel, the Draschwitz wheel ran "on different principles." Since bidirectionality didn't arrive until the later Merseburg wheel, the Draschwitz one had to be unidirectional just like the Gera wheel. So just what in the world did Bessler mean by "different principle," if both wheels did essentially the same thing? Answer: they worked on different principles! Real simple. One needed weights to operate; the other somehow didn't.
    Discovery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Discovery The reason why John won't post blogs on any real wheels (but only stupid sims) is because he doesn't want to let any possible inspiration of his design, or any workable design for that matter, go public, lest someone else be first in making a working wheel; this is only reasonable, and to be expected. We would all do the exact same thing; cover up the small amount of valuable evidence, but release any and all nonsense junk and garbage ideas just to appear fair. If you're correct about "different principles," that would mean different wheel designs might all work. Fascinating thought indeed.

      Delete
    2. In his book Ken mentions that there were actually TWO Gera wheels! The one publicly displayed on June 6th of 1712 was the second one and 4.5 feet in diameter. The first one was actually completed in late 1711 and was only a 3 foot diameter prototype, but it was the first one he ever built that actually worked. It was the one Bessler kept in his various residences and used to give a quick demonstration of his invention to his closest associates when he did not have a larger one to show them. That prototype wheel had very low torque and the total mass of each of its eight weight carrying levers was less than a half of a pound. A sim of that wheel is what is shown in Ken's youtube wheel video. When running freely with its sides covered to reduce air resistance, it could attain a speed of over 60 rotations per second. Also, when running at full speed, it would be able to lift a weight of a few pounds by a cord that had been suddenly attached to a protruding pin on its axle from the top of a table up to its axle as the drum rapidly slowed to a stop. Anyone who has not seen the youtube video of that prototype wheel yet can find it here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nP7KY6_EAM

      Incredibly, Ken gives complete plans in his book that should allow anyone to make a replica of Bessler's prototype wheel!

      Daniel H.

      Delete
    3. "Discovery" wrote "After all, if it works, who cares if it is Bessler's exact wheel?"

      Who cares? Those of us who want to know exactly how Bessler did it, that's who!

      Delete
  10. I have some news (about Bessler) for you that may be disturbing. Namely, it may be concluded by some, after reading this, that Bessler was a government-hired fraudster! The story goes like this. Bessler showed basic hate and distrust to his friends as well as his enemies. After all, s'Gravesande was on Bessler's side, right? But yet, when he "groped in his wheel and grasped his axle," he then got mad and smashed the thing. So why the high praise to Karl all the time? Well, simply put, he was getting paid by Karl underhandedly! You see, Karl was the 17-18th century tech giant, and trying to gather up valuable technology to employ in his growing mechanized empire. So, he had to reinvigorate the search for perpetual motion by actively creating the illusion that it was already made! That's how Bessler, the alchemist, became his most valuable sidekick. You see, as an alchemist, the chief study is of the transmutation of metals from one element to another, which can only occur through radioactivity. Thus, Bessler had full knowledge of radioactive elements, and their decomposition, such as from uranium to lead. Now, the discovery of a highly volatile liquid, such as methylene chloride or other, would have been known by Bessler who investigated Boyle's flask and hydraulic/gas pressures. The combination, then, was extraordinary, and simply the reverse action of the modern dipping bird. In a dipping bird, the beak dips in water to cool off, and the liquid evaporates at room temperature. In Bessler's system, the liquid condenses at room temperature. The evaporation would have been due to exposure to uranium, or some other radioactive material, which caused heat. The official date of 1789 for the discovery of uranium is not important, since many materials have long been known, but not as to their real nature, and not given a name, and thus thought of in some magical way. Whatever the case may be, Bessler probably subjected the liquid to the scrutiny of radium or thorium or uranium, and found it evaporated. This liquid would then create pressure, lifting a lever which in turn would raise a weight. As the wheel spun around, the gassified substance would cool and condense back into liquid, creating a vacuum, which would suck the lever in and pull the weight back up into its original position. The cycle would continue "perpetually" for many decades, until some "assistance" would be needed to repair "worn-out" parts. In reality, it would require new nuclear fuel to keep it going some more! So, in effect, this was the first nuclear powered engine. Notice how Bessler handled one of the weights; it was cylindrical and yes, lead, but Bessler strangely held the ends closed. What was he hiding? Well, simply put, the uranium was dissolving to lead, or encapsulated in lead, hence the lead cylinder with uranium inside; and the holes were to be attached to hydraulic tubes, where the liquid like mercury could hit the uranium, evaporate, and shoot out, creating pressure (the shotgun firing), and then condense back up to the dual-function weight as a liquid, causing a recoil aided by a spring. The effect was spectacular! The process, regulated completely by special position-activated switch-like mechanisms, would halt the process if the wheel stopped; and the weights would remain in an overbalanced position, of course, so the wheel would take off again when released! The stunning sensation was, as Karl desired, enough to arouse curiosity in perpetual motion, perhaps to make someone find it; the question is, what if someone actually would have bought the wheel? Simply put; Karl probably thought that something "better" than uranium could be found, which would not "wear out" (because he didn't know it was fuel), and thus protect Bessler, by saying Bessler was poor and couldn't come up with the "better" materials that would last longer.
    The Scientist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that sure is fascinating stuff, I guess that makes the tests invalid to prove the motion was powered perpetually be gravity, but what about all the other wheels I mentioned?
      Discovery

      Delete
    2. Yes Discovery, like Wagner said the tests Bessler conducted only prove that the motion was internal, not external; but as for what power source drove it, the time test ruled out clock springs (as Wagner employed in his wheel). Yet, nuclear fuel would be able to perform the EXACT SAME results in all of Bessler's tests, AND EVEN BETTER, because the power of the wheels and the endurance of rotation for extremely long periods of time (like decades, for instance) would be able to duplicate it. That of course makes one wonder if NB (meaning “note well”) actually means “Nuclear Bessler”? You can “note well” that little tidbit! LOL! You mentioned wheels. I see nothing workable in the Buzzsaw, but have rather heard it was a hoax that utilized an old tractor wheel. I watched the Sequeen wheel, but I don't see any parts of the internal mechanism moving, so it seems quite suspicious. Keep in mind that there are electric motors that can be run, without magnets, merely by having the electric poles touch either end of a conductive axle. And, of course, it needs to be started with a slight push, and is bidirectional! And Sequeen's contraption has copper pieces holding down the ends of his axle! I would dismiss that. Asa Jackson? Why, dear old JC has yet to publish a blog on that (wink, wink), so I have no clue as to how that thing was supposed to run! As far as Ken's insane idiotic piece of crap, I must say that I dismiss it also, but disagree with you as to why. You contend it could not lift a load. However, I contend it can't rotate AT ALL! The reason being is that there is absolutely no overunity in it, or anything like it. Bessler stated a one pound weight falls, and lifts a four pound weight over the same height. JC contends that this is impossible, but wait: Wagner argued that this HAD to occur (so do I), and Bessler in his refutation book actually AGREED with Wagner! Of course, this is either overunity – or, in the NB (“Nuclear Bessler”) theory, actually a one pound weight switch raising a four pound weight, powered by nuclear-activated hydraulics. I guess the NB theory is officially underway! Perhaps somebody would like to build this wheel?
      The Scientist

      Delete
    3. With all due respect, the speculative essays by both ‘The Scientist’ and ‘Discovery’ are both so full of inaccuracies that I feel it is quite unnecessary to correct their comments.

      I must take issue with ‘Discovery’s assertion that I would post blogs on individuals and their wheels. I would you have even considered such a proposition because I don’t have such information. The celebrity wheels you mention have been exhaustively covered over many years on the BW forum.

      Daniel H, aka Ken Behrendt, (apologies for any spelling errors) quotes from his book, highly speculative statements supported by a complete absence of documentary evidence.

      JC

      Delete
    4. I'm not Ken, but I have made the effort to complete the reading of his very large book. He states quite clearly in the introduction that he has filled in some of the many blanks in the Bessler story with plausible scenarios to make the biography he supplies of Bessler seem as logical and readable as possible. There's really no problem with doing that as long as he has told the reader what he has done and, imo, what he provides is probably very close to what actually happened. He uses a interesting "you are there" approach in which, as examples, the reader becomes part of a crowd viewing a Bessler wheel demo, joins in with Bessler and his brother as they construct the large drum of a bidirectional wheel, or sees how Bessler revealed the secret of his invention to a quite skeptical Count Karl.

      When it comes to the description of the parts used in Bessler's wheels, however, there is no speculation there. Their dimensions, masses, and other parameters are precisely given in the DT portrait clues and he devotes much space to pointing them out. More interestingly, the identical values appear in both portraits! That would seem to be very improbable unless the design he shows in the book which is based on those values was actually what Bessler found and used and also wanted others in the future to duplicate. I guess the matter won't be fully resolved until someone actually uses that design to construct a working physical replica of one of Bessler's wheels. I wish I could use the simple instructions Ken gives to make a working replica of the first Gera prototype wheel, but I'm not really a builder type. I have trouble just hanging a picture on a wall! I think it's really a project for a younger Bessler enthusiast to take on.

      Daniel H.

      Delete
    5. Daniel, Ken, which ever name you go by, why don’t you just write under your own name, instead of trying to kid us that it is someone else? It is obvious from the style of writing, your knowledge of the book and your uncritical consideration of the contents, that you are the author. Your claim to have no speculation in the description of the parts will be completely blown out of the water when I reveal the clues and codes I have deciphered. Not a single one has involved the portraits. I’m considering posting a number of clues which will prove my point.

      JC.

      Delete
    6. Ken you can’t just say that this or that proves that you have solved everything, without having produced a working wheel. I should know, I posted so many clues over the last ten or more years. They have been dismissed as mere guess work and largely fantasies. This is why I’m so reluctant to reveal anything publicly, although I did share a design two or three years ago with a friend for whom I have the greatest respect, and he produced a sim which revealed the flaw in my design. I’m no good with sims but I recognised the problem and believe I’ve resolved it now, but without a working wheel to show, I’m just wasting my time and my reader’s. In June or July this year I posted reminders of a number of clues I have posted, but the response was mostly critical. My website at www.theorffyreuscode.com has been read by thousands of people but again dismissed on forums which discussed it. Make a working model Ken.

      JC

      Delete
    7. At a minimum we have to give Ken credit for publishing a wheel design which he claims is derived from the various clues he found in the DT portraits. That's an approach to a solution no one else has tried before. He also claims that he has simulations that verify that the design works. That is still not as convincing as a working physical model, but it is far better than a design which has no simulation verification. It should not have been possible to derive a working simulation from the portrait clues if they weren't actually valid clues. I intend to shortly obtain the download of his book and see exactly what those DT portrait clues are. He either has Bessler's design or he does not. Time will tell. I'm really hoping he does so this mystery can finally be solved.

      Delete
    8. "The Scientist" wrote "Thus, Bessler had full knowledge of radioactive elements, and their decomposition, such as from uranium to lead."

      LOL! I suppose he invented the Geiger counter centuries ahead of time as well!

      The Realist

      Delete
  11. John why are you even bother answering. He'll keep coming back. Leave it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know yellow, I guess I’m hoping he’ll admit he’s Ken. But that’s it now, no more responses to any of the Ken’s!

      JC

      Delete
    2. I don't see how Ken's wheel can ever work, because it is bottom heavy. The only way Beesler's wheel will work, is by constantly keeping it, (the wheel) top heavy! Just the opposite. In order to do that, the weights have to shoot; more or less straight up, at the 6:00 and 12:00 positions. Then they swap places every one half revolution. FWEIW

      Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    3. AP Page 334:

      “Listen...my weights are not like those in turnspits and clocks. They don’t need to be raised up...it’s a different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill wheels, turnspits, and clocks”

      Delete
    4. @Sam P.
      A wheel can work if it is bottom heavy so long as the CoG of its weights always stays on the descending side as it turns. All the designs I've ever seen are bottom heavy with the CoG sinking farther down to below the axle as they start turning and staying there and then the wheel becomes stationary. The design he shows in the video seems to be keeping the CoG on the descending side as it turns which surprised me.

      Delete
    5. Aon,

      Suppose the weights are made of Iron and each one weighs 4 pounds. The 5 weights below the center line equal 20 lbs. and the 3 above weigh 12 lbs.
      The CoG will be at or about the 6:00 position. I know I'm a dumb farm boy, with no knowledge of simulations, but I don't think that will never work! If you forgive me for saying so.

      Sam

      Delete
    6. @Sam P.
      You could have 10 lbs above the axle's center and 100 lbs. below it and the wheel would turn continuously if you could figure out a way to always keep the CoG of the 110 lbs of weight, which would be located far below the axle's center, even a fraction of an inch horizontally away from an imaginary vertical line drawn through the center of the axle. Of course, the torque would be low and to get the motion you'd have to keep the bearing frictions of the machine as low as possible. With the exception of what I saw in Ken's video, I've never seen any overbalanced wheel able to do that. Sure they may start out with the CoG on the descending side, but it quickly swings around and drops a little so it is located right below the axle's center and exactly on that imaginary vertical line through it and then there's no torque to continue turning the wheel. Also thank God for "farm boys" or all of the city folk would be starving to death!

      Delete
    7. OK; I stand corrected!

      Delete
  12. It's very easy to identify Ken. He is using a lot of words without page breakers. No punctuation is followed by a new line. That's Ken for you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The sad part is, he may very well feel that he knows the Bessler secret. But unfortunately he don't.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Over at bwf some call him "Ken the Great". With a title like that if he says he's found the secret of Bessler's wheels that's good enough for me! Now let's see what happens when someone tries to build it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was going to ask who had described Ken as ‘great’, but then I saw it just now, only the one person who has been banned from BWF and many others, too many times to count.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Banned too many times to count?! That means he must be a genius and was banned because his brilliance made other members too envious to stand having him around. So if he thinks Ken is "great" that means Ken must be an even bigger genius!

      Delete
    3. I found the recent topic on bwf where JAL says "Ken the Great is a friend of rlortie's. His neighbor in fact and posted that he wouldn't be surprised if I were successful. The guy spoke out against his own friend and neighbor. I can find his posts as well. Popular people do not get banned."

      Maybe he's not referring to our Ken B because, IIRC, our Ken B lives on the east coast and Ralph lives on the west coast of the USA. They aren't neighbors. I also don't think they are friends because, again IIRC, Ralph was one of the ones complaining about Ken's wordy posts just before he finally left bwf back in 2006. JAL must be referring to some other "Ken".

      Delete
  15. Anonymous the unknown comic don't quit your day job the walking talking cliche! well maybe walking, stopping, then talkin!

    ReplyDelete
  16. RAF John, Does your design fulfill your requirements in "the mechanisms theoretically" (2010)? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m don’t know what you’re referring to RAF. My design has had the same basic concept for the last two years, so it may be not the same design as in 2010.

      JC.

      Delete
    2. I think RAF is referring to this:

      http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/the_mechanisms.html

      @RAF
      That is a description of the basic weight shifting mechanism that JC thinks Bessler used (at least back in 2010). JC believes, however, that Bessler's wheels actually used five of the basic mechanisms that would then overlap their effects to keep the CoG of five weights on the descending side during wheel rotation.

      Delete
    3. Ok, got it, I did not realise you were talking about that old design, sorry. It was wrong although I still subscribe to the five mechanisms. I have been working on a different design for at least two years. It is unique or so I believe, and although easy to understand I’m finding it quite difficult to actually make it. I wish there was a fine draughtsman locally who could do a good drawing of the various stages in one complete rotation.

      JC

      Delete
    4. @JC
      You need that Fletcher guy to simulate your design for you to see what is happening to the CoG as the wheel turns. If it's not staying on the descending side and cannot be made to do so, then you won't have a working wheel design and it can't be Bessler's.

      If the simulation does work, however, you may ultimately find yourself in the same place as Ken. You might have a wheel you cannot build yourself which is only based on a working simulation and various clues you've found in the Bessler literature and you can then only publish the design and hope others can make a working physical model from it. Anyway, best of luck with it, but keep in mind that the longer you conceal it after the simulations show it works, the greater the risk someone else will come along and openly publish the same or a very similar design. When it comes to historical credit and the associated fame, it's the first person to openly publish that gets it and not the first to conceive a design. If and when you openly publish, no doubt there will be others coming out of the woodwork claiming they had the same design years ago and even published it then. But, unless they can prove those claims of prior publication, they mean nothing as far as history is concerned.

      Delete
    5. Fletch kindly did a sim of a design I made, a couple of years ago and it showed where my design was flawed. I have had time to, hopefully, rectify the problem and if he is willing I may contact him again to make sim of my current design. But I’m trying to build it first, but if it fails perhaps I can ask him to try my design again.

      I totally agree with you and if the sim was made and it worked I’d publish it ASAP.

      JC

      Delete
  17. To: John who wrongly accused me
    From: "Discovery," so named because he wants to share ideas on how to discover a real working wheel, which apparently at least one anonymous individual on this blog does not seem to like well, as can be seen from his idiotic reply to my comment. Apparently his desire to see BESSLER'S wheel is so great he would TRASH ANY OTHER WORKING WHEEL, which to someone like him is, I suppose, quite brilliant.
    Greetings! Although, of course, I was not greeted so cordially. After posting my nice little comment, suggesting a possibility for your Highness's next grand blog post, I received from you scathing ridicule, and was delibrately targeted for slanderous attack, which to any normal person can be only seen as clearly unwarranted.
    First of all, my little comment was described as a "speculative essay," which I find particularly fascinating, considering that I was not speculating anything, but rather suggesting. And if that is an essay, I suppose this refutation could be called a book report, but apparently you like essays, since you see essays in the smallest of comments, so I will proceed.
    You then deliberately target ME, yes ME, and say that my so-called "essay" is so full of "inaccuracies" that you feel it unnecessary to correct me, but then you go ahead and supposedly "correct" me anyway, which is rather hilarious indeed.
    Just what "inaccuracies" did you supposedly find, sir, since you say it is "so full" of them that you wouldn't bother "correcting them"? Apparently, not even YOU know, because you couldn't even list them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You then apparently "took issue" with my "assertion" that you post blogs on individuals and their wheels. Then you ask why I would consider such a proposition? BECAUSE YOU SAID BEFORE THAT YOU WOULD DO JUST THAT, that's why!
    Do I need to refresh your aging memory? Go ahead and look at the July 2019 blogpost you did called "Perhaps its the journey and not the destination." Now scroll down to the comment by Anonymous29 July 2019 at 07:54. Here is what he asks.
    "If I produce a working bessler wheel before you and publish it, can I post a link to it here ? or will you delete it ." Now this is a very sensible question indeed, is it not? And then you gave a very straightforward answer.
    John Collins29 July 2019 at 08:39 "Yes, of course, I would be delighted to provide not just a link but a unique posting for you or anyone else who succeeds in this venture. JC"
    Can I remind you that the very next blog post you did was on the Ken Behrendt wheel which has NOT been proven AT ALL? In fact, IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN BUILT!
    And then you have the audacity to ask why I would consider such a proposition of asking you to post a blog of someone who has built a model of a wheel he claims to be Bessler's wheel, such as the Sequeen Bessler wheel by Oh Seok Kyun on youtube last year?
    Oh, but you say, you have no information, and these "celebrity wheels" have been "exhaustively covered" on the BW forum. Well, if this is so, why didn't you give me a link to a full explanation of the Sequeen Bessler wheel rather than angrily replying in such a way as to make me look like a fool?
    The reason why is clear: the subject of that wheel HAS NOT been thoroughly covered there, except for a few small tidbits where years ago, the Korean inventor was trying to contact you to privately correspond with special information on the nuances of the mechanisms he was building.
    So naturally, since ONLY YOU would have that information, other than him, and since he had already built and videoed the wheel last year, was it so wrong for me to suggest you post a blog about its existence and perhaps give a link to the videos of it?
    It seems then, that YOU were the one spouting off the inaccuracies, NOT ME. And yet, somehow, I am the bad guy in all of this? For merely suggesting a blog post? That has got to be the lamest thing I have ever seen in this blog's history, and believe me, I have dug into the archives.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As far as the rest of my "essay" comment is concerned, I don't see what else you find so inaccurate, since you did not list the details.
    I mentioned that Ken's wheel can't be the Gera wheel because it can't carry a load, even if it was able to run, which I don't believe it can even do that. I used simple math, so if you think that the math I used is "inaccurate," then you should probably go back to grade school and relearn physics, since you obviously missed it.
    The rest of my comment was about the different principles of wheels, which are all provable from the very materials you yourself have published.
    Wagner Critique, XXIX "Almost no clatter and rattle was to be heard with the Draschwitz wheel; the wheel was made up of 8 spokes and was completely empty near the circumference, as one could see through the various cracks in the casing made of thin splinters, but there was not the slightest trace of a rising and falling weight to be heard or seen."
    That's what Wagner said, that's what he observed, and that's what I mentioned in my comment. Now here is Bessler's reply, taken from his Apologia Poetica.
    XXIX (b) "The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else. You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you. The two machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite different principles."
    The only "inaccuracy" I spotted is that I was referring to Gera and Draschwitz, when the matter was probably concerning Draschwitz and Merseburg, so bidirectionality can be taken into account here indeed, and I concede the point, if it suits your fancy.
    However, I still contend that somehow Draschwitz is a bit of an anomaly, as Wagner said there were no weights to be seen through the cracks falling and rising, and Bessler didn't seem to contend the issue.
    If weights were needed for bidirectionality, and no weights for unidirectionality, then that alone should say alot. And so I assumed that with all of Sequeen's talk about "reverse torque" using "counter leverage" I figured he might have found something.
    However, some scientist guy came on, and I flattered him so I could pose a question to him as to what he thought about the matter. He then answered me with more information than you could ever care to give me, which says much about the typical nonsense that is thrown around in the comments section as of late.
    The fact that the mechanism itself is not moving could indeed suggest it was a hoax run by electricity, so I figured that maybe I should leave the matter alone. He left alone the Asa Jackson wheel, perhaps he doesn't want to mar the reputations of those who lived during the Civil War. Fat load of help that was.
    So, in short, I came on as a friend, yet you irrationally hurled rude insults against me for no reason, treating me like an enemy.
    I hope you enjoy well the path you have chosen.

    Signed, Discovery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Find a problem fix a problem. Why don't you start your own blog? oh yeah that's right you can't be anonymous. can't have your cake and eat it too! Here's the simple truth you're nobody if you're insulted no harm no foul because oh yeah you're nobody! it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong until you're somebody all you say will be looked at the same just another whiny b****!

      Delete
    2. You seem to be a fan of Sequeen's version of Bessler's wheel which can be found here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPC3DkG0V4

      He hides the central mechanism in the video with a piece of circular plastic and claims it has run for up to 20 minutes at a time. He also predicted he could make it run perpetually. Most likely it is just be a well lubricated, heavy flywheel wheel that manages to run for 20 minutes before coming to a stop. We haven't heard much about him or his wheel of late and can only assume that he did not manage to break through the "20 minute barrier".

      Delete
  20. To ‘discovery’, I answered both your’s and another’s comment with the same words, when I should have singled each out for an individual response. I apologise for tarring you both with the same brush, but I still maintain that I wouldn’t do a blog about the well-known ‘wheelers’ that you mentioned because they have been done to death on the BWF and I’ve nothing else to add to their story. Your inaccuracy was suggesting that I would do a blog on the subject, I wouldn’t. Without repeating your words, I cannot see how agreeing to provide a link to some one presenting new wheel has anything to do with previous wheels discussed on the BWF.

    I’m sorry to learn that you have taken offence at my response. You are not the enemy and I did not think of you as one. If my response seemed to blunt and dismissive I can only blame nine years or so of blogging, and trying to respond to comments when I think I can answer a question or add a comment that might be of interest. My main point in writing a blog was to try to get new people interested in solving Bessler’s wheel, and helping existing researchers, it has never been my intention to annoy or irritate commentators and I hope you will continue to post comments as and when you feel the need, with respect.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  21. Truly amazing how many are emerging claiming to know "the" secret of Bessler's wheels! They all have one thing in common: no actual working unhoaxed physical wheel to demonstrate! Either Bessler had a dozen different working designs that he used or the "discoverers" are all delusional. I think the latter is more likely. Perhaps someone somewhere is eventually going to finally produce an unhoaxed working physical wheel and all will rejoice. As the euphoria of that success subsides, however, it will be noted that its design does not exactly match the clues Bessler left us. To eliminate that objection, some will then try to retranslate the clues to make them agree with the design of the successful wheel. That, of course, will not satisfy the purists and they will continue to struggle on to find "the" design Bessler actually used. Eventually, it could be found, but maybe not in this century. Then again, maybe it never will be found. It's even possible that it was all just a clever hoax that was never successfully exposed and that has only wasted the efforts and lives of thousands over the past three centuries. Also, maybe those reading this will awaken shortly to find out their pursuit of pm was all just a frustrating "bad" dream that they were having and they are glad the dream has ended!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "To eliminate that objection, some will then try to retranslate the clues to make them agree with the design of the successful wheel."

      As Einstein once said, "If your theory does not fit your facts...then change your facts!" Lol!

      Delete
    2. You make a fair point anon, but this isn’t a recent obsession. I recommend you obtain the two volumes by Henry Dircks, entitled Perpetuum Mobile. First vol, 1861, second one 1870. He covers every instance of a proclaimer of a successful perpetual motion machine. There are dozens and dozens, many historic but even more around the time Dircks wrote. But there is no record or proof of any single one actually working. The trend continues and there is no doubt in my mind that it will be solved with a working wheel within a couple of years. I’m satisfied that Besslerscwheel wasn’t a hoax but I must try to prove it, and soon!

      JC

      Delete
    3. @JC
      It's really not enough for you to "prove" it. Most likely anything that you build and claim actually works will be quickly dismissed by the skeptics and those committed to other designs as merely a delusion you have or, worse yet, as a hoax. You will need to have as many others as possible independently build a wheel using the design you've found and also announce that it works. Even those other working wheels, however, may all be dismissed as some form of hysterical delusion among the pm chasers or some scam being perpetrated. To settle the matter once and for all, you will need to have your working wheel tested at a recognized school of engineering and have its professors, all with legitimate doctoral degrees, say it's genuine, all be willing to sign a statement to that effect, and also state so at an international news conference. Then, maybe, something will actually come of it. It's a long race track that you have before you and, right now, you are like a horse that has barely gotten out of the gate!

      Delete
    4. Thanks for your well intended advice but I disagree. My plan is to video and demonstrate the concept, which is easy to understand. I also intend to reveal some of the clues which support the design, thus proving that it is Bessler’s. I have planned additional actions which will help promote the wheel. I have read of other people who insist on having the wheel tested and verified by experts, but I don’t think it’s necessary, and besides I’m sure this several experts will do their testing without my added request.

      JC

      Delete
    5. John, after reading through most all of the posts from all the various anons, it seems to myself that your site is descending into Troll Hell.

      They (or he) will not stop until they have gathered-in enough of your (our) energy, and their thirst for it often is a story never ending, and so could go-on literally sans surcease.

      Trolls are a sick species of people that do not come forward and establish some minimal identification reality, and suck-at one's vulnerabilities/desires by declaring any nonsense (or pseudo-sense) as might come to their weedling little parasite minds.

      There are more of these anons that have posted here, on this page I think, than we identified honest ones. From here-on-out, it only gets worse, John. How long is it to be before you are worn-down and finally, out??? One can only take so much.

      Years ago, now, Bill McMurtry (later to sleeze into "Ovyyus" of The BWF) referred to myself to another thus: "he's real," which I thought strange at the time, but now I do understand why such knowing is important.

      (Of this bit of earlier fun, I've still the print-out standing in evidence for it. The particular discussion was with regard to the Gary Magnetic Motor excitement of that time.)

      ================================================================

      John, I believe I understand your plan should you prevail in being "the first." For my own part though, being of the exceeding poor and totally alone (all relatives and friends of long ago being now D&B), I could not and would not consider such a path for any taking.

      Again, it would have to be Bessler's Plan all-over-again or, once again, if NOT PAID, 'twould go right back into that old vexatious Trickbox of History upon my demise.

      The way it's gotta be.

      Humanity MUST LEARN, and it seems to want to do all it can to destroy all that is, and particularly what is of-the-good, while posturing and talking otherwise, as-if something marvelous and grand!!!

      I don't buy it. We are loathsome, deceptive and faking, posturing species with a few fine and outstanding examples displaying otherwise. (Without which we'd be done-meat.)

      No. I would choose once again just as Bessler did - to put my charming human fellows "to the test," as the Roman Catholic's used to call their quite effective Inquisition Program - this to separate-out the common chaff from the precious wheat in faith.

      (Real exposed life is ROUGH stuff, as dictated-so by Mother Nature, she with her Laws or, actions of Necessity, these dually made to be learnt-from, or not. (I.e. what is Law; what is Necessity. These two being not in any way the same.)

      At this quarter the rule would be once again: THEY PAY or NO PLAY.

      What minute sum as a good and worthy turn for value given would I require?

      Simple - the exact same one as Bessler did, as adjusted for relative worth. That same amount. No-more, no-less.

      (Forget the fake concept of "inflation" that is of only recent manufacture by The Ruling Money Power. It was and is intended to bend compliant brains into accepting that it is not manufactured by It, but rather is natural. Their ain't nothin' natural about "inflation," just invisible and thieving, like the devil. Think not? Count the billionaires sprouting up like weeds. Soon enough after they possess all that all have ever worked for throughout the Eons, they will become Trillionaires. Just watch. Won't take long now.)

      James

      Delete
    6. "...they will become Trillionaires. Just watch. Won't take long now."

      Yes, that is my ultimate goal...to own everything on Earth and charge everyone else the highest rents I can squeeze out of them to use it. Having a trillion in assets will be the closest thing to heaven anyone will ever achieve! So far in history there is only one person believed to have achieved that level of wealth. He was Pharaoh Khufu for whom the Great Pyramid was constructed. He was worshipped as a living god!

      The Realist

      Delete
  22. To all optimists,

    Live your days inspired anew! (LYDIA)

    Sam Peppiatt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's another old saying which is that "Optimists are only pessimists who haven't lived long enough yet!" That means that, eventually, after being banged around by life long enough, all optimists are eventually converted into pessimists. My personal favorite saying, however, is "When life gets ugly one will quickly find out that his money is his only real friend!" I want to have as much of that "friend" as possible!

      The Realist

      Delete
    2. This is not an old saying,
      Lydia is a real person, who was beaten nearly to death by, no doubt an ugly pessimist. She was in a coma for a long time, then had to relearn how to crawl, how to stand up, how to walk, how to talk, everything. After regaining her speech, she has used her name as the following acronym.

      "Live your days inspired anew"!

      I'm 79 years old and, I say her life is pretty wonder full! FWEIW

      Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
  23. Here's what confuses me Anonymous realist why don't you use your own name! What possible reason. what do you have to be afraid of after all your thoughts are mainstream misguided but none the less mainstream it confuses me the only reason for this Behavior is you already know the technology works you just don't like its outcome the only truthful things you talk about is Your Love of Money which I have no doubt you do and out of fear you attack whatever attacks Your Love how pitiful you are. You are a sad sad sorrowful case of jealousy. You actually believe money can buy you happiness. It's the answer to all your problems. do you hear that sucking sound that's the bubble being formed around you that has no air!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. S-G, they are TROLLS and do a lot of TROLLING here, the reason being to bang our cages for reactions. Cowardly and stinking, insinuated sadomasochism FEEDS upon the angst thus exuded by it's victims. This is nothing new, only here as put into clear unambiguous terms IF they can be but only understood. (In these days of softened, deformed minds, this proposition at best reading becomes one 'iffy.' I am trying to be kind here.)

      John knowingly, wittingly, purposefully allows this situation of utter intolerableness (here the noun form) to continue-on and fester. Aquarius MUST have it's way, and nothing from without can't act to dissuade it! Multifariously, I've learned this pat lesson indelibly! To it, there ARE no exceptions - a fatal defect of the zodiacal pantheon.

      ================================================================
      in·tol·er·a·ble (ĭn-tŏl′ər-ə-bəl)
      adj.
      Impossible to tolerate or endure; unbearable: intolerable agony.
      in·tol′er·a·bil′i·ty, in·tol′er·a·ble·ness n.
      in·tol′er·a·bly adv.
      ================================================================

      How utterly misguided it is to believe that ALL deserve a voice, no matter what torturous (not tortuous nor tortious) penalties we honest, known respondents must endure on account. (This being what in earlier, more civilized day, was referred-to as 'an inordinate imposition.' Words count!)

      I suggest that, if left unaddressed by ruling, authoritative logic, it will be ONLY anons anymore here-posting and, that said authority will be 'driven nuts' by having to keep up with the evermore concerting, enabled madness.

      Just my little half-baked opinion, S-G. It is the best I can do, presently.

      J.

      PS The study of the differences existing between Law and Necessity, S-G, will serve (if succeeded-at) to answer many questions that otherwise without, will remain only as bafflements. The U.S. Nation was born 'of Necessity' NOT Law! 'Twas most illegal and immoral to have gone against our then Sovereign Christian Lord of blessed memory the King of England - old Geo. III. It was SIN! Deal with it! However, that as notwithstanding, it WAS NECESSARY that we were to toss-out this King, his Parliament and there agents, the charges against them as listing in our Declaration of Independence. Understand? When LAS fails, only remaining for appeal is NECESSITY. There is purpose to Her existence. Do NOT worship Law as if God Almighty. It is a mistake that is encouraged by scoundrels. Now, all KNOW that have read these words and ergo - deniability destroyed!!! Mission accomplished.

      Delete
  24. James I am sure you've spent many hours trying to figure out where Bessler hid the main principle which allowed the success of the machine. Did you ever consider how you would convey that principle to the world?

    ReplyDelete
  25. S-G, well I've spent some on it but, it is one "tough nut" to work out.

    As for "how" I might proceed, gees, I've fantasized many such schemes, each of which upon deep analysis reveals pitfalls and dangers as well as the plus, fun parts.

    As some seem-to, I do not underestimate the capabilities of heavily invested (to the multi-trillions now) Personified Corporatism's (Big Power; Big Oil; Big Whatever) abilities to allay utterly, by any and all means as might be found necessary, any possible threat that could arise against them, finally realized perpetual motion, of course being one.

    For gaming purposes, I put myself in THEIR shoes, imagining what I would do (or would not) to protect the status-quo of things.

    The answer always comes out as: ANYTHING!!!

    The only safe way would be to resort-to the Pandora's Box approach: open it and distribute it's contents broadcast in such a way that NEVER could what was loosed ever be gathered-in again. Against this, THEY would be impotent.

    Would raw, untethered revenge for such a "scurrilous" act be the ultimate payment to any unwise doer? Likely-so.

    Personified Corporatist slaves, from floor-sweepers to board chairmen, reflect that Entity's prime directive: "Seize ALL where possible and give NOTHING in-return." Not complicated and very, very real, as is demonstrated daily by these, by the minute and second consistently - there being NO exceptions to the rule. They OBEY, or they are eliminated.

    Might this highlight what likely are but just a few of the actual REAL pitfalls to the introducing of a realized P-M to the world?

    Best I can do for you at this time.

    James

    PS Recently deceased actor Patrick McGoohan's appearance when alive, reflects with ultimate precision my own inner being and, the way I regard things and persons generally. Call me a cynic. I have found it a most wise way-of-being. (Why, over at The BWF I even styled myself as "Cynic-In-Chief." Some nerve, huh?)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks James yes I've thought of all the scenarios and no matter which way I look at it there will be pain! I also know from the standpoint of evolution either a species adapts and evolves or goes extinct by its own the hands. I also have looked at it from the philosophical pain is to be accepted for the birth of New Life! It would have been much easier and far less painful for all concerned if Johann Ernst Elias Bessler would have given it away freely just as he had received it. Don’t get me wrong I’m not blaming Bessler he wasn’t the first one to fall short there were quite a few before him. And to Bessler the circumstances in his time would have been perceived as they are today. I have been sitting on the fence too long looking for an easy way but all I can do is ask Jesus Christ help me I can't do it alone! patiently wait but I don’t know how long I can hold back I can only say what comes to mind that the truth will set us free. Thank you James I love your honesty someday maybe we’ll talk directly may God bless you and keep you always!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are most welcomed, S-G. Yes, it is so as you say that it would have been far easier on all if Bessler had revealed all but, there would too have been no test if-so, which I truly believe it to have been.

      This failure served to point-up the innate FEAR that leads to the GREED and HYPOCRISY that exists within us all. (Our afraid little animal sides need to acquire things and group status on account.) That is the lesson demonstrated as so real and, on-going, by means of that test - it became (or rather is becoming daily so more-and-more) a TANGIBLE demonstration of these egregious and hobbling short-comings.

      If you can post over at The BWF, send to me a PM there and I forward my e-mail address, then we might converse as you suggest. (I've not quite been excommunicated from their Most Elite presence that operate it. Personally, I believe it to be a clandestine agency "lookout." This being the primary reason it is supported so very liberally and, this going-on for decades, now.

      And, you are most gracious, S-G. Thank you.

      James

      Delete
  27. Yes James you did get me correctly subconsciously it was a good series with Patrick McGoohan's in the Prisoner is very few people would have gotten the sucking bubble don't forget to keep a pocket full of pins and never give up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed! It was just so 'out-of-the-park' creative, no? A masterpiece! I've read that McGoohan was intensely appreciative of and caring about his fans. A very good additional sign, I think.

      "Be seeing you."

      Delete
  28. JM and SG...PERFECT together! Lol!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sir, there is a foolproof logic to calculate the potential of Bessler's machines:


    • The wheels had mass and thus angular inertia..

    • ..they rotated, so gained angular momentum, in spite of having no stator against which to apply such momentum..

    • ..ergo the exploit is, by definition, an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law..

    • ..and we also know (from the Toys page, and basic physics) that the exploit reaches OU at five cycles; that is, after the momentum gains from five successive reactionless accelerations and subsequent inelastic collisions have been accumulated; a 25% per-cycle efficiency accumulator.

    • This definitively sets the input energy cost of momentum at precisely 1 J per kg-m²-rad/s of momentum gain.

    In summary, the KE equation sets the minimum cost of momentum at ½ J per kg-m²-rad/s, however paying this rate for the momentum gains would mean OU was attained in just three cycles; yet Bessler consistently points to a value of 5 cycles; this minimum occurs when half the total momentum and energy is lost each cycle, which in turn happens when we gain 'reactionless' momentum by sinking counter-momentum to gravity, whilst accumulating the un-cancelled remainder of 'positive' momentum.. thus setting the input energy cost of the momentum at a definitive 1 J per kg-m²-rad/s.

    Whatever the actual masses / weights / MoI's (radii of interacting masses), each cycle sunk half of the input energy to gravity along with the counter-momentum, and then dissipated another half of what was left in the collisions (the bangs heard emanating from the descending side of the wheels), hence resulting in this 25% per cycle accumulator, and a corresponding 75% loss of input energy per cycle.

    So we know without doubt that it cost 1 J to raise each kg-m²-rad/s of angular momentum..

    ..furthermore, ¼ of that is converted to heat via these 'bangs', which does not necessarily need to be wasted; that is, one quarter of the total input energy can be preserved and recouped, in principle, from that heat loss. Calorimetry would support this.

    However collecting this waste heat is completely unnecessary, due to the fact that, per the KE equation, the energy value of the accumulating momentum gain squares with its rising velocity component.. the more momentum that can be accumulated this way, the faster the system gets, and the greater the difference between the 1 J per kg-m²-rad/s energy cost of momentum and its resulting KE value..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's do some rough calcs (feel free to tidy these up if you can derive better reference figures than me)

      • Suppose a wheel weighed one metric tonne (1,000 kg)

      • Suppose the mean radius of that mass (on a net per-cycle basis) is 3 meters

      • Suppose it rotates at 26 RPM

      • Per rotKE = ½MoI*RPM², 1 tonne at 3 m radius rotating at 26 RPM has:

      MoI = 1,000 kg * 3 m² = 9,000 kg-m² of inertia

      26 RPM = 2.7227 rad/s

      ½ * 9,000 * 2.7227² = 33,358.928805 or 33.3 kJ of rotKE

      ..and 9,000 * 2.7227 = 24,504.3 kg-m²-rad/s of angular momentum..

      ..at 1 J per kg-m²-rad/s = 24.5 kJ of input energy..

      33.3 J out / 24.5 J in = 1.35x OU

      Again, this neglects all dissipative losses, which needn't strictly be the case (at least in the modern era, obviously, Bessler's losses were just losses), but in principle we can easily account for them since we know they're at least ¼ of the net input energy, hence:

      24.5 kJ * 0.25 = 6.125 kJ in addition to the rotKE, hence:

      33.3 kJ rotKE + 6.125 kJ heat = 39.725 kJ total output, and:

      39.725 kJ total output / 24.5 kJ input = 1.621 * unity.


      These calcs are assuming only that there was some mass, at some radius, rotating at some speed, and gaining that speed without recourse to a stator (ie. without applying counter-torque at the axis). These are the numbers that thus fall out..

      See how simple it is? It can't be any other way. My estimates of the reference quantities aside, refine those figures and you have the incontrovertible minimum efficiency, without possibility of error beyond those initial guesstimate margins..

      That's what you gotta love about it - mechanics is the archetypal 'exact science'..

      Delete
  30. a given mass...... say 1 lb with a moment arm of say 6 ft that is 6 ft lb of torque in a 12 ft wheel. The same mass with a different moment arm of say 4 ft is now 4 ft lb of torque. The 6 ft moment arm will always lift the 4 ft lb. No hocus pocus, just math

    ReplyDelete

Johann Bessler and the Orffyrean Code

I’m posting the Legend of Bessler’s wheel again because I’m going to be away for a few days.  I’ll respond to any comments as and when it’s...