Sunday, 9 February 2020

My Bessler Wheel Builds.

When I consider all the test mechanisms I have made over the years and I read about other people’s builds, I’m often surprised that they have gone ahead and built the whole machine, and in the process, made a beautiful build, even though, in the end it doesn’t work.  I used to build the whole wheel although it was a crude, roughly built example, but it was done just to test the the design or the concept.  When it failed I used the parts for my next effort, cannibalising the various bits and pieces.  This is why I have no examples of previous attempts to show anybody, but I do have a huge collection of assorted lengths of steel and aluminium, weights etc.  About three years ago, I threw out about twenty wood discs which I had used to support the mechanisms I built and tested over many years.  They had so many holes drilled in them there was little room for new ones.  I hardly ever photographed any of them because I did not see the point at the time, of keeping a copy of a failed design.  I have published a couple of old designs from years ago, but they were of little use or interest to anyone.

Having built countless mechanical arrangements I continue to believe that relying on sims without any attempt at building is going to end up by you missing a vital part of the necessary action, and the allowance for that particular action.  I’ll say more about that in a later blog.

My current effort is pretty crude, but I have it in my mind to ‘pretty it up’ if, or when, it works.  But unlike my previous efforts I am sure this one will work, so I’m considering not making any announcement until I have completed a second build with a more professional finish and no empty holes, unlike my previous builds!  This will be extremely difficult to do, remaining silent for the time it takes to complete the polished version.  I included the word ‘if’ and I think that even if it doesn’t work, I will photograph it as part of my explanation of how I think Bessler’s wheel worked.

If I announced that I had succeeded but refused to show it working until I had perfected a better looking version, I would rightly be besieged with demands to show it working.  This is a dilemma, but a nice dilemma to contemplate. In the end I guess I’d have to do both, show the ugly one and then the nicer one.  Any way I’m getting ahead of myself, I haven’t finished any versions yet.  No wheel, no tell.

JC

Latest news about my granddaughter Amy.  She has more or less overcome the 24/7 extreme pain in her left arm,  by carrying out daily desensitising therapy, but still has severe dystonia in her left wrist and hand.  This means her hand is bent almost double to her wrist because of involuntary powerful contracture of the muscles and tendons. She can now hold her head up unsupported and also her upper body is more self supporting.  She can squeeze together her thumb and first finger of her left hand to hold a things.  None of these things were possible a few weeks ago, and it is all due to the amazing work of STEPS rehab clinic, but it costs over £5000 per week, so any and all donations very very much appreciated.  please share even if you can’t afford a donation.  Thanks to all who have kindly donated and or shared.

I forgot to add that Amy’s Nasal feeding tube has been removed and she can eat normally!

Link to my granddaughter’s gofundme site https://www.helpamy.co.uk/

See the latest update.  https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-our-amy-to-walk-again

Thank you to those kind people who have made donations to Amy’s gofundme site.  You are very kind and of course some of you have shared the links too.  We are so grateful for any and all donations.


111 comments:

  1. "But unlike my previous efforts I am sure this one will work..."

    If I had a dollar for every time I told myself that, I'd be a millionaire by now! I made my previous models by gluing popsicle sticks together to make different size drums and levers. After dozens of builds over the years all I have to show for it now are several large garbage bags piled up against one corner of my cellar that are filled with broken up popsicle sticks with dried glue on them. I recently told a friend who knows about my hobby that on my gravestone I want them to carve a large popsicle stick between the two dates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here! I’ve never used popsicle sticks but I bought an old meccano set on eBay once but I ruined it eventually, drilling extra holes and cutting bits off it. I had a clear out of a lot of stuff when we moved house three years ago. But I’ve still got way too much stuff!

      JC

      Delete
  2. Hi John .. "Having built countless mechanical arrangements I continue to believe that relying on sims without any attempt at building is going to end up by you missing a vital part of the necessary action, and the allowance for that particular action. I’ll say more about that in a later blog."

    I think you completely miss the point of Kinematic Simulations. They mimic real world mechanics and in many instances are even less restricted so you can explore further. What might hinder your research with sims is when allowances need to be made for "slop" in joints and such. The fact is most sim builders have also built countless sim movements and probably countless real world movements as well. Speaking for myself I can often anticipate very accurately what the sim will predict. I'm not surprised too often.

    I think exclusively real world builders like yourself and the likes of me who does both are just as likely to miss "a vital part of the necessary action, and the allowance for that particular action" if one exists in Bessler's PM Principle.

    But not because we failed to see a particular action or make allowance for it because we are sim users; but because the action is known to us but used completely counter-intuitively. So much so that all have failed to recognise its true purpose and potential to be the corner stone principle of perpetual weights movement in a gravity field.

    -fletcher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sims turn hours of frustrating work in the shop into minutes at a keyboard. They are the wave of the future and will play a growing role in the search for pm and other fields. WM2D is probably the easiest to use for the beginner. It takes a few hours of practice to become proficient with its use, but is well worth the effort.

      Delete
    2. Well actually I agree with both comments, but I once tried to sim with algodoo and although I enjoyed playing with it I found the experience unconvincing. I think I would struggle with better software and so I continue with manual builds. I was impressed with the sims you did for me fletcher, and if you were willing I might ask you to sim what I’m working on now, just in case it should fail. Although the concept is simple it’s proving difficult to build but I’m getting there.

      JC

      Delete
    3. @John. You might consider having several of your most trusted friends do sims of your wheel design and see how they all compare with each other. That will compensate for the risk of using only a single person's possibly faulty sim to decide if you have a runner or not. If everyone says it's a nonrunner, then that settles that and you can ask them what they think is wrong with it, try modifying it, and then resubmit it to everyone. If you are heading in the right direction, you should be getting more and more that say it's a runner. Of course, if they all say you have a runner, then you've arrived at last and it's time to actually build a physical model. Make sure that they all understand in advance that by helping you they will not later be able to claim any credit for your runner when (if) you find it. It has to be your work and not theirs so you get all of the credit for the rediscovery. They are just there to help speed you toward your goal.

      Henry L.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for your advice, I have it all in hand.

      JC

      Delete
    5. It's the hours of hard work that will lead to success. Don't you see? Without the hard work you will never figure it out-------Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    6. You’ve got that right Sam. JC

      Delete
    7. @Sam

      Hello, mate. The problem is that when it's time for all that "hard work" to be performed most gutted and knackered wheel chasers, especially the narky older blokes, have a thousand reasons why it's not the best time to do it then like they're too tired, pissed, or ill, they have some bloody social obligation to which they must attend, their favorite show is coming on the telly, or whatever. Then there will be a lapse until the time seems to be best again to do the hard work and, sure enough, one of those thousand reasons will spring up again. With all of that faffing around, before they know it a fortnight passes with no hard work having been done on their wheels, but they swear most sincerely that they will surely get round to it next time. That ledge Bessler warned that the part time wheel builder has little chance of success other than by a fluke. He said if someone as full of beans as he had come along then the wheel he invented would have been found in ancient times. Sorry if I waffled on a bit here, mate. Time to put a sock in it.

      Delete
    8. Yes, I have missed a few days, in 5 years. And you are right; I'm 80 years old so can only work 4 maybe 5 hours a day at the most. This is the point I'm trying to make: Some people seam to think that, by doing simulations, you can forgo all of the hard work. Maybe they are right; but I don't think so. Sam

      Delete
    9. Even if you get a simulation that works, there's still the hard work of turning it into a physical wheel to show that the simulation was accurate. But, the total amount of hard work you will have to do will be far less than if you have to build one failed wheel after another year after year before you finally find a runner if you ever do. Why waste all of that time and effort if you don't have to anymore? It's like insisting on only using a horse and carriage for travel after automobiles were invented and made widely available.

      Delete
    10. OK, If simulations are so much better, than all of my wasted work; what have you learned?? Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    11. Sam. For every wheel design a non sim user builds by hand, the sim user might build a dozen. Both will learn something from their failures, but the sim builder will learn far more because he has more failures to learn from. The sim user has a better sense of what might or might not work than the non sim user. The most important thing a sim user learns is that any design that has a big horizontal displacement in the CoG of the parts away from a wheel's axle's center is doomed to fail.

      At best if you are getting close to success you are working with designs that only cause very small horizontal displacements of their CoG's and the locations of those CoG's are VERY sensitive to the positions of their weights relative to each other at any moment during wheel rotation. Those positions have to be precisely coordinated and that is exactly why Bessler talked about his coordination principle which he alone had discovered and which no one else before him was using. He apparently used stretched cords between his levers to achieve it but there might be other ways to achieve it. If you are not simming then you don't really know exactly where the CoG is in your wheel at any moment. All you can do is guess it's on the descending side if the wheel is turning. You'll only know for sure that it's right under the axle center when your wheel comes to a stop.

      When Bessler saw Leupold's overbalanced pm wheel in a book on mechanics he immediately knew it would not work because of the lack of coordination among its levers. If your wheels are still using isolated mechanisms and you have no coordination among them and they most likely won't work. This is the most important lesson the sim user learns over time. You won't get success by just repeating the failed designs of others over and over again which is unfortunately what most of the non sim users are all doing now.

      Many think they have something unique only to discover later that it was just another variation of some design made in the last century that was also a nonrunner! If you are not using sims then you should seriously consider looking into using them. If and when you find a runner with the sim, then you can start building it in the shop. I was very hesitant to start siming but being bedridden for several months from an accident I had no choice if I wanted to feel "productive". I'm actually glad I was forced to start using the sim software because it completely changed my view of the search for pm. It will change your view too if you can give it a chance.

      Delete
  3. We are looking for something that, in my opinion, a simulation cannot reproduce, because simulation programs can only reproduce what is known, what the programmer of the program has incorporated into the program in terms of scientific knowledge. Gravity is treated as conservative. But is this true? The fact is, we do not know what gravity is at all. Is it a force of attraction (vis a fronte), a pushing force (vis a tergo) or as Einstein said, a curvature of space-time? How is gravity modeled in the simulation programs? Attraction, what is taught in schools is most likely wrong.
    I assume that gravity is not conservative under certain conditions. These "certain conditions" must be found. A simulation program cannot do that.

    ovaron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All you have to do is figure out how to keep the same number of weights on both sides of a wheel and always have those on one side a little farther from the axle than those on the other side without any of them being mechanically connected to any part of the wheel other than with a loose pivot (but the weights can be mechanically connected to each other). The first part is easy to achieve. The second part is what no one, aside from Bessler, has figured out how to do. Once both conditions are achieved and the CoG of the weights always stays on one side of the wheel as it rotates, the weights will lose more GPE as they fall on one side then they regain while rising on the other side even though they all fall and rise through the same vertical distances. That GPE difference will then accelerate your wheel and power machines attached to it. With this kind of mechanism, which requires using more than a single weight, gravity can be made to behave as though it is not conservative. This is probably the only way to make it behave so.

      What is taught in our schools is not completely wrong. It's just not complete. Bessler was working beyond the textbooks of his day and that is why he created so much controversy then (and now!). If he had revealed his secret back then, our textbooks would look much different today.

      Henry L.

      Delete
    2. ovaron, But the wheel could be simulated once you know how to do it, right?

      I submit that it is only a mechanical problem----------nothing too difficult once you know how. Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    3. I don't think, a simulation program programmed with today's knowledge will be able to simulate the Bessler-Wheel, even one knows exactly how the mechanics works. The energy that the wheel releases must come from somewhere. If it's not gravity, it must be something else, so far unknown. The laws of leveraging cannot be tricked purely mechanically. That's why the Bessler-Wheel is dismissed by physicists and mathematicians as a clever fraud.

      ovaron

      Delete
    4. "The energy that the wheel releases must come from somewhere. If it's not gravity, it must be something else, so far unknown."

      If that Ken guy is right that energy comes from the mass of the levers and their attached weights inside B's wheels. If you calculate the energy in one pound of lead it is enormous. Then multiply that by the hundreds of pounds of lead in B's wheels and the amount is even greater. Next imagine that energy being released at 50 watts. A wheel tapping that energy could run for a very long time but not forever. If one of B's wheels was put in a cave and started running and the cave sealed then it would still be running today and only used up a tiny amount of its energy. The limit on his wheels wasn't their energy but the strength of their materials to resist wear as a wheel turned nonstop.

      Delete
  4. @ ovaron .. Sam is right ovaron when he submits it is only a mechanical problem, imo. If so then sims should be able to test the theory. The theory is that overbalance can be maintained within certain mechanical conditions, which once found gives asymmetric torque to the wheel and is of itself the mechanical PM Principle.

    For many years I too doubted that WM2D could show a working wheel. I didn't know whether the program was top down or bottom up i.e. discreet calculations feeding into one result or limitations set on what it could do from the top down. Finally a few months ago I was able to test it to my satisfaction. Whilst the whole design concept was too complex for my sim to handle I could sim parts of it. The mainstay was that two systems turning the same way nullified their individual torques, and then an overbalance chain drive was added. To test the hypothesis I simmed the carrier wheel which had a negative torque. I had an automatically calculating Turning Moment for this. I balanced that torque with a fake force of the same magnitude but opposite direction. This was the balanced condition of the PM Principle. Then I was able to add the external chain. The sim accelerated from a standing start and eventually settled at a good clip. So to me that provided some confidence that a sim could in fact cope with a true overbalanced, asymmetric torque mechanical condition if discovered.

    -fletcher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anybody who thinks wm2d can't show overunity just has to use it to make a wheel and then put a constant torque on it so it accelerates. If you do that and also make a graph of the rotational kinetic energy of the wheel, it will increase exactly according to the Rot KE = 0.5 x I x w^2 equation just like any overbalanced pm wheel would do. I think those that doubt this are really just anti-sim use types who are trying to justify why they are not using sims which is, imo, mostly due to them being afraid of them. They can seem scary at first but with practice you realize that you don't have to use every thing on a tool bar to build most of your wheels. You can start simple and then over time use more and more of the tool bar's items until you slowly master them. Meanwhile, you'll be saving yourself a lot of time that you can use looking for that "simple" solution Bessler found "where everyone else had looked" but did not find.

      Delete
    2. Although I am very unfamiliar with sims, I can’t see any reason why a sim should not be able to show Bessler’s wheel, and given that his wheel cannot avoid the laws of physics it must be able to show it. Surely those laws are a basic function built into the software. The only problem I can see is including in the input to the sim, the phases during rotation where a part of each mechanism ‘coasts’ before acting again. That’s not giving anything away!

      JC

      Delete
    3. "The only problem I can see is including in the input to the sim, the phases during rotation where a part of each mechanism ‘coasts’ before acting again."

      That's done automatically for you by the sim. After a wheel has turned so much, if a mech is free to swing or shift or slide or whatever at that location, then the sim will make it do so for you. Meanwhile you are watching where the center of gravity of all your parts are relative to the axle. If it's staying on the descending side throughout a full wheel rotation you have success. If not then it's time for changes to your design that might help. You don't spend weeks to months making them. You can make them within an hour sometimes within minutes!

      Delete
    4. What bothers me is; that with all of your effortless simulations, that you have preformed in mere minutes, you still don't know any thing!!

      So, how can they be better? Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    5. The problem with a simulation is that gravity is assumed to be a conservative force. Exceptions are (so far) not possible for the simulation. But is that really the case in the real world? Can't it be that gravity is also dependent on time? If weights rise fast, like Bessler says, is it possible that they are exposed to less gravity? If Einstein is right and same processes run slower at higher gravity, couldn't it be possible that in reverse, same process running faster is exposed to less gravity? We don't know and can't find out with a simulation. A simple overbalanced wheel is not possible according to the current state of science. The weights must be periodically returned to their starting position, i.e. they must travel a closed path. A simulation, if it is programmed according to the current state of science and runs without errors, must show that this is not possible.

      Ken's idea of deriving the energy from a reduction in the mass of the levers cannot be reproduced by a simulation either. A simulation can only reproduce what has been programmed before. But the real world may be quite different. Ken's simulation model, which obviously works, cannot be correct because the simulation does not take into account a reduction in the mass of the levers, as Ken suggests.

      ovaron

      Delete
  5. As I see it, gravity is a conservative force and is exactly as we have been taught, but because it is conservative that means it is continuous. If gravity wasn’t a conservative force it would not be continuous and therefore no use for Bessler’s wheel.

    There are established means of identifying a conservative force which we are aware of, but those methods do not impinge on our work here, finding the solution to Bessler’s wheel. This is because we are simply using gravity to make something fall, and we seek to raise the fallen weight to allow it to fall again, courtesy of gravity. The act of raising the weight again will be accomplished by a particular mechanical arrangement, which has nothing to do with breaking the law of conservation of energy, because gravity is continuous and if we can arrange to lift the weights every time they fall, then gravity will be only too please to make them fall again. It isn’t that we are using gravity to provide energy, we are simply using the presence of gravity to make our wheel spin continuously. Gravity is enabling our wheel to spin.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And where do you think the released energy comes from? If gravity is a conservative force, by definition the energy cannot come from it.

      ovaron

      Delete
    2. Hi ovaron .. Bessler says categorically that his wheels were overbalanced. If you believe this as a fact then Science can not explain how a conservative 'force' or conservative field of potential can be the purveyor of energy to do external Work. Physics has developed the Work Energy Equivalence Theorem (WEEP) to tie force x displacement to energy, tied in a convenient bow and neatly gift wrapped. If Bessler's PM solution is a mechanical condition not yet found, but findable, then this bow will have to be untied. Also the Laws of Thermodynamics which distill everything to heat energy equivalent will also have to be re-examined I'd imagine.

      P.S. good conclusion about Ken's sim in WM2D and his theory of losing mass to supply energy. As you say the sim can not replicate the gradual mass loss conditions because that is not recognised in the Macro Laws of Physics nor the programing based on them. One or t'other must be erroneous.

      -f

      Delete
    3. @ovaron
      Ken B. says that the weights in B's wheels were constantly losing mass during each drum rotation but that loss was in small fractions of a picogram! Sim programs assume that the mass of parts, once set, do not change so no sim will show that small change in mass. Even physicists weren't aware of this effect until the beginning of the 20th century. Right now our Sun is losing about 4.73 million TONS of mass every second as the fusion reactions at its core create a lot of gamma radiation which then heats up the rest of the Sun. A tiny fraction of all that released energy makes its way to Earth and powers our entire world. This is a real effect and there is no doubt that it is happening. In B's wheels the same loss of mass was taking place but on a much, much smaller scale and without the need for fusion reactions. B's pm mechanisms were able to reduce the mass of the atoms in their weights and levers during each drum rotation and use the energy of that lost mass to accelerate the wheel and also power outside machines. This happened even though the weights and levers fell and rose through the same vertical distance with each drum rotation. This effect is not possible for a single weight and lever moving around a "closed path" in a gravity field and the physicists are right when then say gravity is a "conservative" force. But it is possible for a collection of weights and their levers IF the levers' rotations around their pivots is very carefully coordinated so that the the cog of all eight weights and levers stays on the axle's descending side at all times. B's wheel design did this. It was a simple design. But it was also one no one had seen or tried before him.

      Ken B. thinks there are many different designs that can do this unlike B. who was convinced he had the only one that would. But finding one of those designs is not easy considering the thousands of pm chasers who have tried and failed since B. lived. You have to be as lucky as a guy who wins a jackpot in something like the US "Powerball" lottery! But as they say for lotteries, "You gotta be in it to win it". If enough try to find these working designs long enough, some will eventually find them. B. definitely did and maybe also that Asa Jackson guy in the 1850's before the US Civil War. Unlike with B. they still have his wheel down in the Museum of Appalachia in Norris, Tennessee. Unfortunately there are parts missing from it and nobody ever figured out how it worked. It's about the size of B's wheel in Gera. Jackson unlike B. never tried to conceal its inner mechanics! Maybe he figured it was so complex that no one could duplicate it by just seeing it?

      https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/asa-172.jpg

      Delete
    4. I think if I had to choose between trying to build Asa Jackson's wooden jigsaw puzzle wheel shown in the link above by anon 21:14 or the one Ken B claims for Bessler that he shows in his youtube video here

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

      I'd want to go with Bessler's wheel.

      Some are turned off by the number of cords and springs in it. But the most important cords are really just the eight green ones between adjacent levers and the four blue and four purple ones connecting pairs of levers whose pivots are 90 degrees away from each other. Those sixteen cords are the ones that actually coordinate the motions of all of the levers during wheel rotation. Ken claims that these cords were arranged as sets of cords in different planes so they could not rub together as the wheel turned. IOW, the set of eight green cords were in one plane, the set of four blue ones in another plane, and the set of four purple in a third plane, etc. Any rubbing had to be prevented so the cords would not fray and quickly break.

      Bessler worked as an organ builder with his brother at one time and said the skills from that job were what later greatly helped him build his wheels. I'm wondering how many cords and levers were used in one of those giant church organs back then. Probably a lot more than in Bessler's wheels yet that did not stop anyone from building and using them. I'd like to see a photo of the mechanisms used inside of one of those early 18th century church organs if any still exist in a church or museum somewhere over in Europe.

      Delete
    5. Anyone afraid of cords, levers, pulleys, and rods needs to avoid becoming a old church organ repairman!

      https://live.staticflickr.com/7071/7217738814_a153a5c493_b.jpg

      Delete
  6. John Collins wrote : "Well actually I agree with both comments, but I once tried to sim with algodoo and although I enjoyed playing with it I found the experience unconvincing. I think I would struggle with better software and so I continue with manual builds. I was impressed with the sims you did for me fletcher, and if you were willing I might ask you to sim what I’m working on now, just in case it should fail. Although the concept is simple it’s proving difficult to build but I’m getting there."

    Henry L wrote : "@John. You might consider having several of your most trusted friends do sims of your wheel design and see how they all compare with each other. That will compensate for the risk of using only a single person's possibly faulty sim to decide if you have a runner or not. If everyone says it's a nonrunner, then that settles that and you can ask them what they think is wrong with it, try modifying it, and then resubmit it to everyone. If you are heading in the right direction, you should be getting more and more that say it's a runner. Of course, if they all say you have a runner, then you've arrived at last and it's time to actually build a physical model. Make sure that they all understand in advance that by helping you they will not later be able to claim any credit for your runner when (if) you find it. It has to be your work and not theirs so you get all of the credit for the rediscovery. They are just there to help speed you toward your goal."

    Hi John .. Henry L gives good advice. I don't consider myself an expert with the sim (reasonably proficient) and others may have better skills or knowledge than myself that may make the difference and get it across the line. Many hands make light work and better creative problem solving. When you can go no further with your physical build then by all means contact me to discuss. As you know I have a theory of my own that is progressing quite well atm and that limits my ability to be fair and impartial because I can't unlearn what I think I've learned and it influences my thinking. That makes ring-fencing both theories difficult to stop cross-contamination. Additionally I open source most of my work precisely for the reasons given by Henry L. Best as always.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks fletch. I am sure I shall continue until my wheel works or it doesn’t. Then I’ll share.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John wrote "I am sure I shall continue until my wheel works or it doesn’t. Then I’ll share."

      Lol! That could mean NEVER because if he can't get it working, then he may never be able to admit it can't somehow be made to work with just a few more changes!

      There was a really weird character who showed up here last year who named himself "Mr. Lepard Spots". John had promised earlier that year that to celebrate the upcoming sixth of June when Bessler first revealed his wheels publicly in the town of Gera in 1712, he, John, would finally "reveal all" whether his wheel worked or not. MLS, however, disagreed and predicted months earlier that would never happen while John continued to insist it would and did so right up to the day before the sixth. What happened on June sixth? NOTHING! John just took off for Spain like a scared rabbit and left everyone here hanging! It was a most embarrassing episode for John and he had much well deserved criticism heaped opon him as a result. The wacky MLS had been 100% right with his prediction!

      MLS went further with what might be called his "Mr. Lepard Spots 2029 Prophecy". This prophecy predicts that no matter what John does, says, or promises, he will NEVER reveal any of the details of what he is actually working on. The prophecy further predicts that a decade from when it was made, that will be when the year 2029 rolls around, if John is still alive and keeping this blog running, then absolutely nothing will have changed here. The names of those regularly posting may change, but the topics will basically be the same in different words and STILL John will not have revealed any details of what he claims he is working on then or of the clues he thinks he's found in the Bessler books that led him to that version of Bessler wheel. He will still only be complaining about finding some time to work on his wheel, parts slapping together and interfering with each others motions, how he needs a new wood disc to drill more holes into, etc, etc, etc. while promising to "reveal all"...eventually.

      I'm hoping that THIS year will be the one that John proves the Mr. Lepard Spots 2029 Prophecy to be 100% FALSE. Well, we'll see what happens. So far, the prophecy is STILL valid.

      Delete
    3. 2029 is a numerologically interesting year. If you add the digits you will get 2 + 0 + 2 + 9 = 13 which is a number associated with God and considered lucky in numerology. If you break the year into two numbers and add them, you get 20 + 29 = 49. 49 can be written as 7 x 7. 7 is a lucky number and is associated with the 7th Heaven mentioned in the Bible where God is supposed to reside. To me this means that this a very powerful prophecy. Imo, John needs to do what he can as soon as he can to prove it is a false prophecy. The longer he waits, the more powerful it may become!

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
    4. Very amusing, your account of MLS’s predictions, if slightly biased against me, but not wrong. I did apologise, blaming my shortcomings on my need to help look after my granddaughter Amy. Despite your misgivings I intend to finish this final wheel, and depending on the outcome, publish everything,I know as soon as possible.

      JC

      Delete
    5. I remember that incident. He was too busy to keep the promise he made to everyone here for months but not too busy for a quicky vacation in sunny Spain! Lol! Then he got miffed when he realized his "fickle friends" here we're not as forgiving of his promise breaking as he thought they should have been since he had assumed he was so beloved by everybody that they would immediately forgive him of anything. What a shock it must have been to realize that was not so! All was eventually forgiven, but not forgotten as the above comment shows, when it was acknowledged that we've all made promises in the past due to over confidence and a need to impress people which we were not able to carry through on for some reason. I just hope he was not so traumatized by that incident last year that he will become even more secretive and then actually help the "MLS 2029 Prophecy" come true! Maybe this June 6th he'll finally throw us some significant crumbs of information before he runs off to Spain again. That would be nice.

      Delete
    6. When it comes to numbers SOS is the master. When it comes to prophesies SOS is the pupil and MLS is the master!

      Delete
  7. John, does the drawing you posted earlier with the 5 mechanisms still play a role? anything else that you can share with us...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure which drawing you are referring to? There are just five mechanisms in my wheel, Gravittea.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Maybe he's referring to this one?

      https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-T6nv3_kSWgU/Wgv-urdTUaI/AAAAAAAADVE/N9hV-gVxgF4nqjjw4nZ-N8TEsdT7HYrlQCLcBGAs/s1600/Picture1.jpg

      Delete
    3. Yes that drawing has a role to play in my wheel. JC

      Delete
  8. @ovaron, ‘And where do you think the released energy comes from? If gravity is a conservative force, by definition the energy cannot come from it.’

    “ Informally, a conservative force can be thought of as a force that conserves mechanical energy. “ wiki. So the released energy comes from the change of positions in the fallen weight.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  9. @fletcher -- " Bessler says categorically that his wheels were overbalanced. If you believe this as a fact then Science can not explain how a conservative 'force' or conservative field of potential can be the purveyor of energy to do external Work. "

    That is why I believe that gravity is not a conservative force. Gravity is most likely not a force of attraction. Even Newton considered this idea absurd, although all his observations are well explained by this idea. If Bessler's wheel was not a fake, as I assume, the theory of gravitational attraction can't be correct. I prefer a pushing theory of gravity. If one takes gravity to be a pressure, one can explain where surplus energy comes from. Just as a sailing ship can sail against the wind, a weight could then be lifted against gravity with less force than it releases when falling down. At least that's my hypothesis. Physics would only have to change the definition of gravity. Otherwise, everything would remain the same. :-)

    ovaron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But overon, isn't the sun pulling on the earth? Don't lessen to these scientist, they will say anything or do anything to discredit Besssler and his wheel. Sam

      Delete
    2. @ovaron .. we can agree that if B's. wheels were not fakes then gravity 'force' (of attraction/pull) can not be conservative because it outputs energy. And force is not energy. I try to stay in the realms of macro Newtonian Physics, so whether gravity is a pull or push doesn't feature too greatly in my mechanical thinking. The problems still a mechanical solution imo. Push theory has been around for a long time fwiw, jim_mich used to be an advocate of Push Theory and aether. Probably to help rationalize why B's. PM principle could work when a conservative Pull Theory can not, atm. Here's a link to Gravitational Push Theory, similar to your own, for some background ...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

      -f

      Delete
    3. Newton did suggest a model for gravity that pictured it as tiny invisible particles that constantly came down from outer space toward the center of a planet and applied force to objects on the planet's surface as they passed through them which then pushed them toward the center of a planet. When two objects were placed next to each other in space they were then pushed together by the greater force of the incoming gravity particles on their outer facing surfaces because their inner facing surfaces were each in the shadow of the other object and had less of the gravity particles hitting it.

      He even designed a perpetual motion wheel based on this model of gravity that he drew in some notes. It was a wheel like Bessler's with a horizontal axle. It had vanes on its rim to catch the invisible gravity particles and there was a ridged roof over one side of the wheel to keep the gravity rain particles from hitting that side by either blocking them or deflecting them away. That resulted in a torque produced on the wheel that would make it turn on its axle. It was like a water wheel with gravity particles taking the place of water. Newton was well aware of Bessler's wheels and I think he was concerned that if genuine the wheels might be violating his 3rd law of motion even though they really weren't. Such a violation would then make his other two laws of motion suspected of being incorrect too.

      It's a nice model but it has some problems. The main one being where do the gravity particles come from and where do they go? Are they just magically created in outer space? When they reach the center of an object do they just disappear? For each particle to produce force on impact it must have its own mass. Does that mean each particle has its own little gravity field? If so how is that produced? Does each gravity particle have even smaller gravity particles coming down toward its center from outer space? I think Newton probably considered all of this and then just abandoned the model. He settled for being more concerned with what gravity did than how it did it. Many chasing overbalanced pm wheels today are more concerned in getting one to work than explaining how it works. The gravity physicists can worry about that.

      Henry L.

      Delete
    4. Henry,

      John had a blog about exactly what you are describing back in 2012.

      https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/sir-isaac-newtons-perpetual-motion.html

      Delete
    5. @ fletcher--"we can agree that if B's. wheels were not fakes then gravity 'force' (of attraction/pull) can not be conservative because it outputs energy."
      Exactly that's why I think, a simulation won't solve B's mystery.

      ovaron

      Delete
    6. You are entitled to think that, as I once greatly perplexed about. But if you think about it ... if GPE can be lost by a rotating arrangement, following a closed path, which produces greater wheel KE/momentum than the GPE lost to initiate it i.e. KE gained > GPE lost, then the wheel will accelerate. That can only happen when the wheel experiences greater torque (which converts turning force to KE), and which is 'usually' a Zero Sum Game, than normal mechanics can facilitate. And it can only generate greater torque from a special mechanical arrangement by having a permanently displaced CoM/CoG to one side i.e. permanent overbalance conditions. And this can only happen by arrangement of special mechanical conditions. Circular argument you might say lol. And if torques can be legitimately mitigated by mechanics then the sim using Newtonian Physics of force (including torques) should be able to replicate it ateotd. IMO.

      -f

      Delete
    7. @fletcher

      Ken B's solution is similar. He claims, due to the sustained overbalance, the average vertical descent speed of the four weights on the descending side of a Bessler wheel's drum was always a little greater than the average vertical ascent speed of the four weights on the drum's ascending side. So, even though the weights always fell and rose up through the same vertical distances, the instantaneous loss of GPE of the four weights on the drum's descending side was always a little greater than the instantaneous gain of GPE of the four weights on the drum's ascending side. That continuous extra loss of GPE from the descending side's four weights was then used to increase the rotational KE of all of the wheel's parts around the center of the axle and made a wheel accelerate.

      He likens this redistribution of energy to a kind of invisible energy/mass fluid that actually flows out of the weights on the descending side of the drum and then flows into the other parts of the wheel to increase their concentrations of the fluid. Some of the fluid even sloshes back into the weights again since their rotational KE around the axle's center also increases. When you attach an outside machine to a Bessler wheel's axle, some of the energy/mass fluid actually flows right out of the axle into that machine to increase the fluid concentrations of its parts! It's a really unusual way of considering how an overbalanced wheel would work, but I can't think of a better explanation. If this theory is correct, then, with the right mechanics and some kind of force field like gravity, one can literally squeeze the energy/mass fluid out of weights like you would squeeze juice out of orange!

      My question, which he tries to answer in his book, is what happens to the weights after they've had all of that energy/mass fluid squeezed out of them? If they eventually become massless the wheel is no longer overbalanced and must stop running and doing outside work. That means it's not really a perpetual motion wheel. But, there might be some unsuspected natural process that somehow extracts energy/mass fluid from a wheel's environment to restore the normal concentrations of the fluid in its weights again. If that happens then a wheel could run much longer if it was tapping the fluid of the Earth itself. Eventually, that would be used up unless the Earth could also tap the fluid from somewhere else like our Moon or the nearest planets or the Sun itself. Maybe the wheel could run as long as the universe lasts. But, is the universe eternal or finite? This type of theorizing quickly takes one into cosmology and philosophy. I think we'll never really know for sure if Bessler's wheels were actually pm or not unless we can accurately measure the masses of parts from wheels that have been run for very long times and did much work as they did to see if they were reduced from being used in a running wheel. I'll be looking forward to seeing how established science deals with these wheels when they are hopefully reproduced in the near future.

      Henry L.

      Delete
    8. A couple of off-the-top'o-my-head thoughts Henry. With the greatest respect to Ken's work. First he produced a sim of his wheel which he showed. It was not accelerating IIRC which would have been more impressive to order to show the permanent imbalance condition he posits. He did not add a disclaimer to the video on You-Tube that the sim was not artificially augmented by hidden means/forces. He could have easily have done this as a sign of good faith and sincerity. His theory of mass loss over time is inconsistent imo with a permanent overbalance theory of sustained rotation for his sims. Sims can't mimic a gradual loss of mass. They use forces. If what you repeat is accurate then the Physicists will have something to say about it I should think. IINM you said the down-going masses had an average greater speed than the up-going. This 'augmented speed' of falling scenario comes up occasionally as a possible PM principle, first proposed by Wolffe. But to increase average speed of descent energy needs to be inputted, and I guess this is where the theory of losing mass over time comes in. Next Physicists will probably say that Newtons Laws as relate to GPE and trading for KE thru height loss is independent of TIME. It is simply predicated on Height loss. Time doesn't matter and neither does Path. The Work is the same regardless. So this brings into question just how the average down-going speed can be greater than the up-going. If it were as he suggests then, yes, a wheel should have asymmetric torque and accelerate. But the sim should not be able to show this hitherto unknown effect at the macro level. IMO.

      So whilst Ken's theory and sims are interesting I don't think he assuaged all the likely concerns that might arise upon deeper reflection than just my quick response here.

      -f

      Delete
    9. @fletcher

      I'm not bothered by the lack of acceleration in Ken's youtube video model wheel. The constant rotation speed can be explained if the wheel was already running at its maximum constant speed and he somehow adjusted the timing of the frames in the video to artificially slow it down. IIRC he mentions that it had been purposely slowed down so people could more easily study the motion of its levers. I asked him a while ago if he would be willing to supply some of the sim files of his wheel for others to analyze. He said several others had already made the same request but he's decided not to do so because he wants them to make their own sims so they can verify the design for themselves. That's a problem because the design he found requires certain precise relationships between the values of all of its parts in order for it to work. Right now one has to buy his book to find out what those values are.

      He does have a big chart in a chapter at the end of the book that gives the values for all of the parts used in all of Bessler's wheels so a builder can immediately get to work building a replica of one of them. He does not use the metric system so all measurements are in inches, feet, ounces, and pounds. He's written the book for a US reader and those living in countries using metric will have to convert the values he gives in the chart into their metric equivalents. I can't imagine that he would have gone to the trouble of writing such a huge book to promote a hoax. He's either found Bessler's secret which he of course is very convinced he has or he's made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of pm! From the precision of his writing and the DT portrait clues he points out that give the part values he uses, I find that hard to believe but I guess it is possible. Time will tell which is the case.

      He gives a detailed explanation in the book on how the weights on the ascending side of Bessler's wheels were always rising at a slower vertical speed than they were falling on the descending side. At first glance that might seem impossible but the weights on the ascending side are attached to levers which as they rise actually reverse the direction that they swing about their pivots as those pivots rise. First the weights attached to the ends of the levers swing toward the center of the axle from 6 to 9 o'clock, pause for a moment, and then they swing away from the axle center as they pass 9 o'clock. The levers don't make finally contact with a stop in the drum until they pass 3 o'clock on the other side of the drum.

      The two reversed lever motions on the ascending side do not cancel out as one might expect. This odd motion which can be easily seen happening in his youtube video model wheel causes the average vertical rise speed of the ascending side weights to always be a little less than the average vertical fall speed of the descending side weights. He claims it is this effect which allowed Bessler's wheels to constantly deliver mechanical energy because it results in the descending side weights constantly losing GPE at a slightly greater rate than the rate that the ascending side weights gain GPE. The small difference in speeds also accounts for the low power output of Bessler's wheels. Increasing that speed difference would be one way to get more power out of a Bessler wheel aside from just increasing the mass of a wheel's weights, radius of its drum, or number of wheels mounted on a single axle. But I don't see any obvious way that speed difference could be increased. It's possible that Bessler already had the most efficient design possible and it cannot be improved further. Then again maybe serious engineers and inventors working with replicas of his wheels in the future will be able to do that.

      Henry L.

      Delete
    10. You have an in depth working knowledge of Ken's book and wheel specs Henry. Since you are obviously interested in the subject I wonder if you are going to take his blueprints and build a real world model ? It's all there for the taking after all. No guess work, just follow the careful imperial instructions to success.

      But you may be like me, and would like to see or build a working sim of it first. But there are no sim files available from Ken to download and run. For free or to buy. Hmmm ... I guess I could spend the time he did and attempt to replicate his sim by following his instructions. I'd need to buy his book to do that, no problem. Hmmm .. why doesn't he include a free sim file of his working wheel with every book sold ? I'd purchased the book after all and it would save me an enormous amount of time and effort. Especially if I wasn't a competent user and new to it. And after that, well, I'd be super motivated to build the real thing too.

      But alas, no sim available for inspection. You'd think Ken would do something about that and at the same time increase his sales of his book !

      -f

      Delete
    11. @fletcher

      I have read and reread certain chapters in his book several times and I am tempted to try making that 3 foot diameter Gera prototype wheel he describes and which is in his youtube video. But the reality is that I currently have some serious health problems I'm struggling with that would probably keep me from finishing the build or doing a good job on it if I did. If you get a copy of his book it will provide you with detailed construction information for all parts of that wheel. But even making a sim of it will be a challenge. The eight levers must have the exact geometry shown in his youtube video and the cords must be attached to the arms at precise distances from the pivots which must also be at precise distances from the center of the wheel's axle. Each cord must be an exact length to limit exactly how far their two connection points can separate from each other. The weights and levers must have a precise ratio of masses as well. His design may look simple at first glance but it's more complicated on a deeper level.

      A wheel should still run if its various parts values and placements are off a little but not as efficiently as it would if they are right on the mark. If they are off too much the wheel will not run at all. I doubt if a sim of his wheel could be finished in an hour. Maybe four hours minimum and only then by a skilled user of sim programs. Also the sim model must be very carefully balanced. It turns out that the CoG of that wheel in his video is only displaced horizontally about 1/16 inch from the axle's center onto the descending side of the axle so the wheel's torque and power are very low. That is a very tight tolerance and he gives elaborate balancing procedures in his book to be used by a craftsman attempting to build a working physical model. IIRC Bessler mentioned a preliminary adjustment process he had to use before one of his wheels was ready for use. Same with what Ken has found.

      Yes it would certainly be nice if he supplied everyone with a free sim to inspect prior to buying his book but then they wouldn't need his book! Like all authors he wants to sell as many copies as possible and who can blame him? I have read much material on pm machines over the years and after finishing his book I think that it is far more informative than the works of either Dircks or Gould. Ken gives you everything he's learned about Bessler's wheels after studying the subject for decades and manages to put it all into a single volume which is huge. I got the softcover copy and it must weigh about four pounds! I had to put it on a special bed bookstand to read it. You literally won't believe what's in his book. He even provides the extra mechanisms needed to make a two way wheel by using two one way wheels inside of a drum and also the clues in the second DT portrait that verify those extra mechanisms are correct.

      He promises in the book that those finishing it will achieve what he calls "Total Bessler Awareness". This is a condition in which one finally understands all of the secrets of Bessler's wheels and all of the previous questions he had about them are answered for him. I can only say that the book did answer all of my questions and that I now see this whole Bessler subject in a new way that I did not before. If someone has been searching for a solution to Bessler's wheels for years without any results and is to the point of giving up then I'd recommend he read Ken's book before he does so. He may find exactly what he was looking for in it.

      Henry L.

      Delete
    12. Henry L. has such an in depth knowledge of Ken’s book, and is such keen supporter of his work, why, one might almost think he is Ken.

      JC

      Delete
    13. I don't think he's Ken pretending to be Henry L. He just sounds like someone who read Ken's book and was obviously very impressed by it. The book sounds exactly like what I've been looking for now for years. A book written specifically about the mechanics of Bessler's wheels by a person that was obsessed with finding a solution and spent decades doing so. I ordered the download version from Amazon to see what all the talk is about. It cost $10 and if it does actually have a solution it would probably be worth thousands of times that amount. Strange though that I can't find a single review of his book anywhere online. That might be due to its sales still being very low. I mean how many people are really into Bessler's wheels outside of a very small group of us? But if his book leads to working reproductions of Bessler's wheels that could change in a big way!

      Delete
    14. Not another pseudonym Ken! These posts of yours are nothing more than sales pitches. You give yourself away by being too flattering to your book and too verbose.

      JC

      Delete
    15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphNpqKpKc4
      Nooooooo!!!! Ken has managed to clone himself!

      Delete
    16. I have tons of evidence that prove Ken B had an ego inflated to the size of the Hindenburg years ago. It's even bigger now that he thinks he's found out how Bessler's wheels worked! Back in 2006 he quit bwf after his overinflated ego made him too big to fit in there. The last image he uploaded there was a cartoon of himself giving his fellow wheel chasers some parting advice on how to find a solution to the Bessler wheel mystery as he takes off. In case anybody has not seen it yet, here's that mocking cartoon of his. The title of the file is "sascension" which sounds like a contraction made from the words "sass" and "ascension". "Sass" means impudence or rudeness. He's obviously trying to compare himself to the risen Jesus ascending into Heaven in it!

      https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/sascension.jpg

      A few weeks ago a friend of mine sent me an "updated" version of that now 13 and a half year old original cartoon Ken did that he got from a friend of his who must have been sent it by Ken. As you can see in this new version which uses parts of the older one, Ken is now making his "Second Coming" to promote his book. Now he looks like a cross between Moses coming down from Mount Sinai and Jesus descending from Heaven during the Second Coming! Moses' tablets have been replaced by a copy of his Bessler book and like Jesus he floats down to Earth with a blinding glow and almost lands on someone's head! The file looks like it's on a photobucket account he has and is titled "Kens Return" which is another comparison to the Second Coming!

      https://img.photobucket.com/albums/p403/ken1947/ZZ15_Kens%20Return_zpsbgnm6nl1.jpg

      With all of the religious symbolism in these cartoons of his, it's obvious to me that he thinks he's on some sort of divine mission for God to bring us all the secret of Bessler's wheels! He could have what is known as a "Messiah complex" in which a person becomes delusional and actually thinks he is destined to be the savior of humanity in someway. They see this bizarre condition regularly over in Israel and they have a special unit in a hospital in Jerusalem to treat Christian pilgrims to that city who show up suffering from it and think they are Jesus! Ken needs to get some help for this as soon as he can! Maybe when someone finally tries to build his version of Bessler's wheel and proves it's a nonrunner that will help cure him and bring him back to reality! The sooner the better!

      Anonymous and PROUD of it!

      Delete
    17. In fairness to Ken he has put thousands of hours of work into his theory of how and why Bessler's PM wheels worked. He simply wants to spread 'his' word and get recognition for it. Not too different from many others motives. He needs, and has got a thick skin, and I give him credit for sticking to the script, one he wrote himself. Validation, acceptance, and recognition may eventually come to him but only if he actually has a viable solution. How to prove that remains in doubt.

      Delete
    18. "Is this the end of the world? I'm scared!" "No, it's just Ken promoting his latest book" LOL! You got to admit he has a good sense of humor.

      Delete
    19. Something tells me AAPOI up there is secretly envious of Ken but cannot admit it. When you think about it, everyone chasing pm can be considered to have an inflated ego. Each is convinced he will be the one to do it and become famous worldwide. Having an inflated ego is actually a required trait for becoming a pm chaser! Ken B is an extreme example, but the difference between him and us is really a matter of degree and not kind. I wish him best with selling his book and I do hope he's finally found Bessler's secret.

      paul r.

      Delete
    20. I'm one of those talking heads down in that "Realm of the Confused, Frustrated Mobilist Where NO Success Is Possible...". Lol! His book certainly looks interesting. When I can I'll try to get the ebook version. Even if he doesn't have the actual solution maybe it will give me some new ideas to try because what I thought for the last three months would work for sure has just turned into another dead end for me.

      Delete
    21. I just got some info that shouldn't have surprised me at all. I haven't read Ken's ponderous tome and I have no intention of ever doing so, but someone who did informed me that while the first chapter is a very detailed and lengthy biography of Bessler that is almost big enough to be a separate book, the second chapter following it is--you probably guessed it--KEN'S autobiography! It's much shorter than the first chapter, but it's obvious that his out of control ego made him purposely place his story right after Bessler's so he could attach it to Bessler's for all time. In other words, it's like he's saying he should be considered on the same level as Bessler even though he had nothing to do with finding a working pm wheel! I guess it could have been worse. He could have put his story in the first chapter and Bessler's in the second chapter to make himself seem more important than Bessler. All Ken did was, he claims, find out how Bessler's wheels worked. I consider this more proof of his out of control egomania. No doubt in his autobiography he will portray himself as a paragon of virtue and a misunderstood genius who had to overcome incredible difficulties to finally solve the Bessler wheel mystery. I can virtually guarantee that's what anyone getting his book will find in that second chapter. Now I'm wondering what future evidence he will provide of the pathological obsession he has with getting as much attention for himself as possible? It should be interesting.

      Anonymous and PROUD of it!

      Delete
    22. @AAPOI

      Maybe instead of putting Ken's efforts down and spending so much time trying to psychoanalyze him based on a cartoon he made sixteen years ago you should spring for ten bucks to get a download of his book and spend the same amount of time reading it?. Then you might actually know what you are talking about!

      Delete
    23. I think it's AAPOI who has some sort of "pathological obsession" with Ken B. Maybe it's AAPOI who is really in need of some help?

      Delete
    24. AAPOI has it right, those who criticise his comments must have forgotten or are unaware of Ken B’s insufferably long and frequent posts both here and on the BW forum. Take a look at his previous books on UFOs, the Paranormal and the secrets of UFO technology! Need I say more!

      JC!

      Delete
    25. Ken's past "insufferably long" posts on bwf are actually mild compared to the verbose nonsense that presently bloats its different topics and is only of interest to a very few of the regular members there. At least Ken's posts were readable and he inspired a lot of new ideas for pm machines in others. Many there actually mourned after he left the site back in November of 2006 and there were periodic calls over the years of "Bring Ken Back" made there as it was realized how he had almost single handedly energized the environment there. He is a unique personality in the free energy field and I don't doubt that his current book will also be unique. He wouldn't settle for anything less. I don't think anyone buying his book will be wasting their money. He'll make sure they get their money's worth.

      Delete
  10. John Collins is a prince! Unlike you and MLS, he can hold his head up. How he can tolerate people like you is beyond me. Sam Peppiatt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can be a bitch when I want to be--------these people have no idea how difficult it is to make a wheel and all of it;s parts out of iron, please keep up with all of your efforts, Sam

      Delete
  11. RAF Hello Fletcher,Would you visit besslerwheelquest.com and use your simulation skills to determine the best pivot points and lever lengths for these two technical drawings? Here, the swinging weights act in pairs and are mounted on a single crossbar as outlined by Bessler. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi RAF .. if you have started a topic/thread on BesslerWheel.com I will be happy to see what I can do. Tad busy atm. At the minute I am having gremlins in my program, so much so I can hardly use it (very very frustrating). I'll probably have to start a topic in the Tech Section at BW.com to tap into the wealth of knowledge there to try and solve the problem. Right now nothing I am doing is solving it for me.

      -f

      Delete
  12. KEN, claims that any OOB condition of the wheel should be as close to the axle as possible. That can't be right! In fact just the opposite is true. The farther out the better. There must be a drastic fault in his simulation some where. Sam Peppiatt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Ken or anybody else is claiming that, Sam. It would, of course, be nice to have a wheel's CoG as far from the axle's center as possible for maximum torque and power, but every time someone tries to make a design that does that, it fails. There seems to be some natural limit as to how far from the axle center you can get the CoG to stay. That Henry L. guy mentioned above that the CoG in Bessler's 3 foot Gera prototype wheel was only 1/16th inch over into the descending side of drum which means it was still inside of the axle! That also means in the four times bigger diameter Merseburg and Kassal wheels the CoG was only located 4 x 1/16th inch = 1/4 inch over into the descending side of the axle! To make up for that short distance, one has to use a lot of weight. Bessler's wheels worked, but they had some severe limitations.

      Delete
    2. What can I say, Maybe I'm wrong---------------------Sam

      Delete
  13. Henry L said : "Also the sim model must be very carefully balanced. It turns out that the CoG of that wheel in his video is only displaced horizontally about 1/16 inch from the axle's center onto the descending side of the axle so the wheel's torque and power are very low. That is a very tight tolerance and he gives elaborate balancing procedures in his book to be used by a craftsman attempting to build a working physical model.

    IIRC Bessler mentioned a preliminary adjustment process he had to use before one of his wheels was ready for use. Same with what Ken has found."

    BesslerWheel.com - wiki clues page - Bessler in AP says "design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without 'turning a hair'."

    B's. one-way wheels self started from any position, apparently. His later two-way wheels were reportedly at full rpm in 2 or 3 turns. The time is not given but we can assume for these large diameter wheels 10's of seconds, perhaps 20 or more.

    For a large inertia wheel this is quite a reasonable acceleration required. It's difficult to see a 1/16th inch CoG offset of "low power" achieving that acceleration. That is why Henry I thought it a good idea for Ken to put up a second You-Tube video showing his wheel starting from a standing start to full rpm in real time. Now that doesn't sound like its asking too much. He can put some outputs up on screen to show the metrics such as rpm and degrees turned etc.

    Furthermore .. B. says that the exact disposition of weights makes not a jot of difference to its performance (paraphrasing). This suggests to me that his wheels did not have fine tolerances, unlike Ken's. And that his one-way wheels were well OOB and his two-way wheels were well torque imbalanced.

    I think you should write to Ken, Henry, and suggest that he consider these comments so that he can perhaps tweak his sales pitch to appeal to a greater audience, increase his book sales, and also address some of the likely concerns that may arise as his efforts gain traction.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When Bessler wrote

      "...the design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without 'turning a hair'."

      it would have been part of his sales pitch to convince potential buyers how easily his wheels could be constructed. And it was probably a true statement. Small, randomly distributed variations in the masses of all of the weights in a wheel would tend to cancel each other out and keep their CoG at the same spot it would be as if there were no variations.

      One of the many things I learned from Ken's book was that EACH of the one way wheels inside of either the two way Merseburg or Kassal wheels used a total of 24 cylindrical lead weights because there were actually three weights attached to each of its eight levers. That means that the total number of weights used in a bidirectional wheel was 48! The ones in the Merseburg wheel were 4 pounds each and they were doubled to 8 pounds each in the Kassel wheel. You can see how massive all of that lead was and why Bessler had to keep removing and replacing the weights whenever he had to move a wheel to a new set of axle supports. A variation of 1 ounce in an 4 pound weight is less than 2% and less than 1% in an 8 pound weight. These are very small variations and their random distribution would have made them have little effect on a wheel's performance.

      The next time I write to Ken B. I'll mention your suggestion for additional youtube videos of his Gera prototype computer model wheel shown starting up and accelerating. He might eventually make them, but he really prefers people make their own sims of the Gera prototype wheel and test its performance to convince themselves that it is genuine. He also mentioned to me last time he wrote that he's currently very busy with a new book he's working on that, believe it or not, might actually be bigger than his Bessler book! He says it has nothing to do with Bessler's wheels though and probably won't be finished until next year some time. He didn't say what it will be about.

      Henry L.

      Delete
  14. Don't forget to mention to him the belated inclusion of a disclaimer. It shows integrity and a sincerity that most PM wheel You-Tubers conveniently leave out. It would set him apart from the host of others, including the fakers.

    Ken can be sincere and right. He can also be sincere and wrong. The point is to articulate that sincerity to differentiate it from a publicity stunt.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
  15. @fletcher

    I have no doubt that Ken is sincere and at this time I'd say I'm about 99% convinced he is right about Bessler's wheels. But I'm going to have to see that working physical wheel using the design he claims is Bessler's before I'm 100% convinced. Hopefully, that will happen soon.

    Because of the low torque of that Gera prototype wheel in his video it probably required several minutes to reach its final speed of over 60 rpm's. The problem with Bessler's design is that it is sensitive to the CF acting its weights. As wheel speed increases the increasing CF interferes more and more with the rapid shifting of the levers and causes the CoG of the eight weights and their levers inside of the drum to slowly drop down to a location almost directly below the center of the axle. As that happens the already low torque decreases further. At its final maximum rotation speed a wheel's reduced torque exactly equals the air resistance and bearing friction acting on it that is trying to slow the wheel down. Any estimates of the acceleration times for Bessler's wheels need to take this steady decrease in torque into account or the time estimates will be much shorter than they actually were. The Kassel wheel probably required five to ten minutes to reach its speed of 26 rpm's.

    Meanwhile I would highly recommend that you obtain a copy of his book and study it carefully. I think if you do you will be amazed at what you will learn from it. As it did for me I think it will make a big difference in the way you think about Bessler's wheels.

    Henry L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fisher von Erlach noted that the Kassel wheel reached its maximum speed of 26RPM within two or three turns. I’m certain that he would have mentioned it if it took ten minutes to reach full speed!

      I have been very patient Ken, but if you persist in this constant promotion of your book by you or your proxies, I’ll start pointing out all the very many false assumptions and examples of poetic license which I have found in the first 197 pages of your book which I previewed courtesy of google, and I might consider deleting your comments.

      JC

      Delete
    2. "Fisher von Erlach noted that the Kassel wheel reached its maximum speed of 26RPM within two or three turns."

      I think it was 's Gravesande who reported in a letter to Newton in 1721 that, when pushed, the Kassal wheel took two or three rotations to reach a maximum speed of about 26 rpm's. However, he does not state how long it took to complete those two or three rotations.

      's Gravesande may have given the Kassal wheel a push and then after it made two to three complete rotations, which could have taken only two minutes or so, it may have looked to him like it was actually turning at its full speed but was not really doing so yet even though he falsely assumed it was. When standing near a large wheel turning at only ten rpm's it would have seemed to be turning very fast. Then, maybe several more minutes passed until he finally got in position and got his watch ready to see how many rpm's were being completed in one minute. By that time the wheel would already been running for five to ten minutes and only after that time finally reached its maximum speed of 26 rpm's. Then when he later wrote to Newton he claimed it only took two or three turns to reach 26 rpm's when in reality it may have required dozens of turns and actually taken 5 to 10 minutes.

      Delete
    3. That is an example of altering the facts to fit your point of view, your book is littered with such errors Ken, and that is just in the first 197 pages.

      JC

      Delete
    4. Fisher von Erlach would have noted a ten minute delay in reaching full speed, and so Gravesande clearly stated that it began full acceleration as soon as he gave it a gentle nudge.

      The Merseburg testimonial described how Bessler started his machine by the light pressure of two fingers pushing gently until the sound of a single weight was heard to fall. The machine gradually of its own accord began to revolve with such force that within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times.

      JC

      Delete
    5. If anon 08:22 is wrong, then the wikipedia article on Johann Bessler is also wrong because it says there that "In a letter to Sir Isaac Newton, 's Gravesande reported that, when pushed, the wheel took two or three revolutions to reach a maximum speed of about 25 revolutions per minute." It gives Gould's book as the source of the information.

      's Gravesande, if he mistakenly thought the Kassel wheel had already reached full speed after only a few minutes of rotation and 2 or 3 complete rotations, might not really have been too concerned about how much time he delayed before he actually made a count of the number of rpm's per wheel rotation. He might even have taken longer than 10 minutes to get around to it!

      Also, you say that 's Gravesande "clearly stated that it began full acceleration as soon as he gave it a gentle nudge." That really means nothing because we don't know how fast that acceleration really was. I'm sure you realize that there is a difference between the acceleration of a wheel and its speed at any time during that acceleration and are not suggesting that the wheel immediately went from 0 to 26 rpm's which would be impossible.

      I think you're also misinterpreting the testimony about the Merseburg wheel and trying to make it sound like it accelerated to 40 rpm's in only one minute. All we really know is that its maximum speed was 40 rpm's after its acceleration was completed. We don't actually know how long it took to reach that speed.

      Maybe it is you who are trying to "alter the facts" to fit your mistaken belief that Bessler's wheels were more powerful and robust than they actually were?

      Delete
    6. I quoted the facts as reported, it is you who decided to introduce an assumption for which there is no evidence.

      JC

      Delete
    7. FWEIW, I'm fairly certain now, (as certain as I can be), that the bases of Bessler's wheel has to be pendulums. For any number of reasons. One of which is; they are unaffected by centrifugal force. I'm afraid KEN's wheel would never work, because centrifugal inertia forces would kill it, if other problems didn't; as you pointed out. Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    8. Happy valentines day to Amy!! Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    9. Henry L. Please forgive me fo saying so but, you are beating a dea wheel. No matter how hard you pound on it; it's not going to get up------------- Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    10. Thanks Sam, I’ve passed your kind message on. JC

      Delete
    11. The truth of this matter is that there was never any accurate time measurements of how long it took either the Merseburg or Kassal wheels to reach their maximum speeds. That would require actually measuring the speeds of both wheels while they were accelerating which requires more elaborate equipment than a pocket watch and just eyeballing the rotation of a drum moving at high speed. We won't exactly know those acceleration times were until we actually have working replicas of Bessler's wheels. However, I do think Henry L.'s estimate (which I assume he got from Ken's book) is closer to the truth. John seems to always be pushing the idea that Bessler's wheels were more powerful than they actually were and his opinion is probably being influenced by his belief that they will be able to supply all of the electrical power we need. There's no proof that will ever be possible. When it comes to Bessler's wheels, it's best to be as conservative as possible about projecting what they may or may not do. Right now we certainly don't have all of the facts about them or the history of Bessler. We only have opinions, calculations based on assumptions, translations of varying quality, and much wishful thinking. Hopefully that will change in the future.

      Delete
    12. So anon, 19.45, or Ken or whatever name you choose to use, you think that Fischer von Erlach and Professor ‘s Gravesande were unable to describe what they witnessed during their examinations of Bessler’s wheel, did not mention that the wheels took ten minutes to reach their full speed. You think that all the people who were allowed to examine the machines did not notice or mention how slow the wheels accelerated. Do me a favour! Your suggestion is the most ridiculous one I’ve read - although I haven’t read the larger part of your book yet Ken. Go away and post your bilge elsewhere.

      JC

      Delete
    13. To help end some of the confusion I decided to make a wm2d model of a 12 foot diameter wheel and gave it a mass of 1,100 pounds which is what Henry L. says he read it had in Ken's book. Next, I used the tested constant lifting force of the Merseburg wheel of 70 pounds which required the 5x mechanical advantage of some sort of overhead pulley system. That means that the Merseburg wheel could only directly lift a suspended load of 70 pounds/5 = 14 pounds right off the axle without the mechanical five fold force advantage of the pulleys. The rope wound around a 6 inch diameter axle with a radius of 3 inches or 0.25 feet. The Merseburg wheel then would have had a starting torque of 0.25 feet x 14 pounds = 3.5 foot-pounds.

      Henry L. said he read that the weights in the Kassal wheel had double the mass of those in the Merseburg wheel (8 pounds instead of 4 pounds each). That means the starting torque of the Kassal wheel would also be doubled to 7 foot-pounds. But, that torque would only exist at the very start when the wheel was just beginning to move and CF wasn't yet becoming a growing problem that interfered with the shifting of the wheel's levers as wheel speed increased. If we assume that the torque dropped nearly to zero when the wheel had finally stopped accelerating and was then just coasting along with a constant speed of 26 rpms and only had to overcome a small amount of air resistance and friction in its various bearings, then the average torque would be 3.5 foot-pounds throughout the acceleration. That average value can be used in a simple wm2d model to determine how long in minutes it would take the Kassal wheel to accelerate to a speed of 26 rpms from a standstill assuming that the decrease in torque was uniform as the wheel sped up.

      I ran the sim using these figures and it took almost exactly 8 minutes for the Kassal wheel's speed to reach 26 rpms. In my model there was no air resistance or bearing friction present so in the real Kassal wheel the time to reach 26 rpms would probably have been a little longer. Based on this I find the estimate of Henry L. of 5 to 10 minutes to be a correct one. After the wheel had completed its first three rotations, its speed was only about 4.4 rpms. That was only a fraction of its full speed of 26 rpms, but I think someone standing near the wheel would have been very impressed by it.

      paul r.

      Delete
    14. The water screw test is a more reliable indicator of Work able to be done at 26 rpms.

      Delete
    15. I’d have to check but I think Wolff reported a four times advantage using the pulleys in the Merseburg wheel. But, not only do we not know how many four pound weights we’re used in the Merseburg wheel or even if the same weights were used in the Kassel wheel we only have Henry L, aka Ken’s dubious claim that the weights were doubled in the Kassel wheel. We also do not know what effect designing a bi-directional wheel would have on the potential power compared to a one way wheel. Wolff suggested that the Merseburg wheel might not have much power because of the use of pulleys but he would surely have mentioned that the wheel took ten minutes to reach maximum speed - if it had. Why do you and your proxies insist on ignoring the evidence of the witnesses, theirs is the only evidence we have about the way Bessler’s wheel performed? So for all your sims and number crunching the results are built on insubstantial insecure assumptions.

      JC

      Delete
    16. Thank you, Paul, for that easy to understand analysis you did on the Kassal wheel. I used my copy of WM2D to verify your results and got the exact same time of about 8 minutes for that wheel to make it to 26 rpm's. I then decided to try the same thing for a quick model of the Merseburg wheel. I gave it half the mass of the Kassal wheel or 550 lbs. and an average torque of 1.75 foot-lbs and then timed how long the Merseburg wheel would have needed to go from a standstill to its maximum rotation speed of 40 rpm's. I found it took about 12.3 minutes during which time the wheel made 247 rotations! Bessler's big 12 feet diameter wheels had sluggish accelerations due their heavy masses and low torques. Still just seeing one of them self start and reach such a dizzying speed must have been awesome. When they are finally reproduced they will certainly get a lot of attention.

      Delete
    17. I think your analyses is closer to a load of Sh-t, than it is to a load of bricks!! Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
    18. There was an interesting incident that happened during one of the demonstrations of the Merseburg wheel just before Christmas of 1715 which is mentioned by Wagner in his "First Critique" in section XII titled "The Wheel Stood Still Once". You can read it on John's website at:

      http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/body_wagner_s_first_critique.html

      Someone was watching the wheel running along at a rapid speed when suddenly and for no apparent reason it just slowed down and stopped! Bessler told the person that the wheel must be rubbing against something which is another way of saying that there was some unexpected friction present. Wagner then says that this friction could have been due to a thickening of the olive oil and grease (which was probably tallow gotten from animal fat smeared on the axle pivots) caused by the wheel's room getting too chilly.

      Most likely Bessler had so many people passing through the room in his home where the wheel was on display that he could not keep it warm inside there. Wagner says Bessler gave the wheel a push and it started up again. I think that this incident shows how really low the torque of the Merseburg wheel was and the estimate of 3.5 foot pounds startup torque by anon 09:21 sounds like it could be low enough to allow the wheel to be slowed to a stop by the drag of two axle pivots that were bogged down by too thick grease on them.

      I wish there were more details on how Bessler fixed the problem because just giving the drum a push should not make the grease suddenly less thick. One solution I came up with would have been for Bessler to take an oil lamp remove the glass chimney part and then hold the exposed flame turned up to high right on the ends of the steel axle pivots that stuck out beyond their brass bearing plates. He could have done that by just holding a small lamp over his head since these pivots were about 7 feet above the floor. That would have warmed the ends of the pivot pins and the grease surrounding them so it would get thinner. I don't think the grease would have gotten hot enough to ignite. He could have done it first on the front pivot and then ran around to the back of the drum and done the same on the axle pivot there. After the grease was thinned enough a push should have immediately made the wheel start up again.

      This quick fix would not have required him to use a ladder or expose the axle bearings or get inside of the drum. Hopefully after this incident he kept the room warmer and made sure any visitors kept the door closed behind them when they came in. Maybe he was he first to use a spring to help keep a door closed! The last thing he needed was to have the word get around that his wheel was stalling out for no apparent reason and was unreliable.

      Henry L.

      Delete
    19. Here's what Bessler says in AP and DT. The last comment, from DT, reveals 40 rpm reached in one minute.

      "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" - AP pg 355

      "I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold." AP - pg 355

      "there's always the danger that a surreptitious shove would knock it out of balance and bring it grinding to a halt." - AP pg 297

      "If something went wrong with my machine, I'd mend it by poking around through a tiny hole, to prevent anyone seeing inside." AP - pg 292

      "I'll tell you with great pride that my timbers are all solid. There's also no trickery going on behind that hole - it's just for inspection purposes." AP - pg 292

      "then set it in motion - it is essentially a roughly 6 ell diameter wheel, about a foot in width. He did this with little difficulty, moving it by hand until a single weight inside it was heard to begin falling; it then began to rotate of its own accord with such a force that within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times, and could only be stopped by applying great effort." - DT pg 247

      Delete
    20. @Anon 22:14

      That last comment from DT you provided says "...it then began to rotate of its own accord with such a force that within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times..."

      This does not necessarily mean the Merseburg wheel accelerated up to over 40 rpms during the first minute after start up or that the wheel completed more than 40 rotations during its first minute after start up. The wm2d model made by anon 9:21 above shows that's impossible. I think this quote is just saying that the wheel was rotating at least 40 times per minute AFTER it had finally reached its maximum speed when nothing was attached to its axle to hinder it and that would have taken a lot longer than one minute to reach that maximum speed.

      Unfortunately, the various descriptions by others of the performance of Bessler's wheels and the present English translations we have of them are probably littered with small errors which can confuse researchers and make them waste time chasing false clues. I think this quote is an excellent example of one.

      Perhaps a better translation would have been "...it then began to rotate of its own accord and had enough torque to EVENTUALLY make it rotate with a steady rate of at least 40 rotations per minute..." This helps remove the false impression that the top speed was gotten within the first minute after start up.

      paul r.

      Delete
    21. No, the average rotation took 1.5 seconds (40 rpms). It started gaining pace from the get go and at the end of one minute had rotated at least 40 times, to 'average' 40 rpms at the one minute mark. At least 40 rpms.

      The key words to comprehend in the context are "with SUCH A FORCE". With force it accelerated. Taking 10 to 12 minutes to get up to operating speed would have been noted by the witnesses (it was not) and that could hardly be described as "with such a force". No matter how charitable the reviewer.

      I believe Ken that you are spruiking your own theory of a perpetual motion principle, and mechanical design. But remain unconvinced that it is also Bessler's. I personally don't care whose it is as long as it has true merit and the potential to work!


      Delete
    22. @anon 22:14:

      In the WM2D model I made of the Merseburg wheel I did not use the average torque of 1.75 foot pounds that anon 09:21 used. I used what would have been the wheel's actual maximum starting torque of 3.5 foot pounds which had been measured with an experiment. The first single rotation of my model wheel required 33.25 seconds to complete and at the end of that first rotation the drum was turning at 3.61 rpm's. That first rotation took a LOT longer than 1.5 seconds to complete and the wheel certainly was not turning at 40 rpm's. If anybody doubts my results then please do make your own model wheel and you will see that you get the same results when you test it.

      I don't think those testing Bessler's wheels were that concerned with how fast they accelerated. They were mainly interested in the maximum amount of weight they could lift constantly with or without pulleys and in their maximum speed. They probably wouldn't have even begun making measurements with their watches to determine a wheel's speed until Bessler told them to do so because he knew when a wheel was turning at its maximum speed based on his own measurements and wanted to make sure they would record those highest possible speeds.

      I agree with paul r. that there are a lot of mistranslations in the versions of Bessler's books that we have. I don't blame John Collins for that because he doesn't read 18th century German and depended on those that did. They probably made occasional mistakes or misinterpreted the exact meaning of a sentence. No one's perfect. There's been some buzz about new translations coming out for years now but so far they are nowhere in sight.

      As an example consider this quote from page 302 of John's version of AP:

      "Moreover, I've arranged things now so that the machine can continue to operate while being repaired!"

      Does anybody seriously think that Bessler could reach into the drum of the Merseburg wheel while it was turning at 40 rpm's to make a repair on some broken part in there? Of course not! This is one of the obvious mistranslations. But, there could be many more that are not so obvious. I think everyone should read AP. But, keep in mind that not everything you read there will be accurate. You'll be reading a poem with rhyming lines in 18th century German that was turned into readable modern English prose after a certain amount of "interpretation" was done to its verses. You can only hope that those interpretations are as close as possible to the actual meanings of the verses that Bessler intended.

      Delete
  16. RAF Thanks for your reply Fletcher!! Wishing you speedy success in exorcising those gremlins! Your expert help is most appreciated!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The difference is, Collins is a visionary! You either have it or you don't. Just try carrying 70 pounds of bricks up four flights of stairs-------- Sam Peppiatt

    ReplyDelete
  18. John,
    As a part of your relevant audience I feel I have a place here and you too John have a special place in this saga (if you will). Much is owed to you in this respect.
    With apologies to ALL concerning my past behavior :
    Delusion seems to be an unavoidable byproduct of our dilemma of using our imaginations to produce and bring forth into the world something that has not existed for more that 300 years. It (delusion) is nothing to be ashamed of in this particular realm IMHO because it serves as an emotional outlet. Without the delusion of success in most cases it would be more difficult to keep trying. It is with this in mind that I want to encourage you to keep trying.
    On a different note I was curious to know if possible hypothetically under what particular circumstances would you seriously consider coming to the U.S. concerning our mutual interest (the subject of this blog) ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi CW, I think we may all be regarded as delusional, until our delusions are accepted as normal obsessions!

      At this point I’m unable to predict when I might be able to come to the US but I guess it will be once I’ve finished my own version of Bessler’s wheel. I’m not sure exactly what will transpire then, although I have tried to make some plans for all eventualities. Roughly where in the US do you live?

      JC

      Delete
    2. John Collins, You have been at this for a long time; why do people hate Bessler's wheel so much? I just don't understand it. Sam peppiatt

      Delete
    3. I’m not sure I understand your question Sam. Are you referring to the majority of the population who don’t believe Bessler? I don’t think they hate his wheel, they believe what they were taught.

      JC

      Delete
    4. The scientists don't actually hate Bessler. They are just very confident that it's not possible for any machine to make energy out of nothing. Since that is apparently what Bessler's wheels were doing they automatically consider them to have been hoaxed. The evidence indicates that was extremely unlikely but those scientists are almost never aware of that evidence. They only need to hear "perpetual motion" and then that's enough for them to dismiss his wheels as hoaxes. Case closed. When the first working replicas appear it will be interesting to see what their reactions will be. Initially, they will probably immediately say the replicas are also hoaxes. When some tests are done that show they are not, they will say that the test results are hoaxed. At some point one of the replicas will wind up in a university and be tested by the most hard boiled of the skeptics and when they finally say "YES!...It works!...It's real!" then that will settle the matter and serious research to improve Bessler's wheels will begin. Right now we're still at the very beginning of it all. It's just too bad that the Bessler story had to end three centuries ago because he could not find a buyer. Who knows how far advanced his wheels would be today if he had sold one and its secrets were revealed? Maybe we would never have started using fossil fuels for the Industrial Revolution and we wouldn't have to face Climate Change today because of all the extra carbon those fuels put into our planet's atmosphere!

      Delete

The Legend of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine

On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, h...