It is the convention to dismiss the very idea of gravity as a source of energy but there is a reason why I say that gravity is ultimately what drives Bessler’s wheel. Whether it is, or is not an energy source, in the end, without it Bessler’s wheel could not function.
For hundreds of years water wheels have been used for purposes such grinding corn and later to drive the cotton industrial mills in northern England. These days hydroelectric turbines are operating within dams, to produce electricity - and the common factor with each is flowing water. Water flows downhill due to the effect of gravity.
Gravity acts continuously on matter that has mass. But for our purposes there has to be a mechanical interaction with gravity. Although gravity interactions in space are described as action-at-a-distance, I’m discussing earthly mechanical interactions which can also happen when a falling object affects the actions of another object.
When gravity moves a mass we say it does work. When it moves a waterwheel it does work by moving the water, which in turn moves the wheel, another object of mass.
If we wish to use gravity to turn Bessler’s wheel, we need to include at least two actions. The first action involves the weights which fall through the effect of gravity - no disputing the cause there. The second action is the turning of the wheel. When Bessler’s wheel began to turn it did so because it was out of balance because where the falling weights landed overbalanced it - no disputing the cause there either, gravity. This is, and has been, the ultimate prize of perpetual motion seekers for thousands of years. Gravity may or may not be providing the energy to turn the wheel, but it is enabling it to do so.
This looks like mere semantics and gives the impression that we are drawing energy from gravity, but we are told we can’t. We are taking advantage of the effect of gravity on objects of mass. This is no different to the way flowing water drives the waterwheel, except for one important difference, the flow of water is finite in that it can only flow for as long as there is water available further upstream.
With a Bessler’s wheel we need a succession of falling weights but we don’t have them. Therefore we must find a way to lift the fallen weights as quickly as possible so that they can fall again before their turn comes around. Fallen weight have to be lifted.
According to Wikipedia a conservative force can be identified by ’the property that the total work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken. Equally, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the total work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the displacement) by a conservative force is zero’.
I have read that definition too many times to count and it has always seemed to me to be misleading. They mention one particle doing a loop, and several particles doing loops, all impossible if the work done equals zero, so no closed loop is possible. But it has always seemed obvious to me that if extra particles are added who do not need to make a loop, but whose sole purpose is to move the original particles away from their mind numbing loop so that they can actually complete a loop because work was done for them, then gravity has done some work on the extra particles resulting in the former particles performing loops.
This does not nullify the original definition of a conservative force, but it does leave the way open to using gravity as an energy source. At the end of the day, we are certain that Bessler’s wheel worked; he said that the weights were the actual perpetual motion; weights fall because gravity makes them; the wheel will turn when out of balance. Therefore I can only assume that the work in rotating the wheel is done by gravity.
If you wish to post a drawing on this blog, I have created a permanent page but you will have to email it to me so I can add it. The email information is there. Click on the ‘submitted Drawings’ link at the the top right side of the column on the right. If interest is scarce I’ll probably remove it eventually.
I have posted a drawing on behalf RAF, but I dont know whether all of it is present, pending confirmation that it is ok.
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
According to Wikipedia a conservative force can be identified by ’the property that the total work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken. Equally, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the total work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the displacement) by a conservative force is zero’.
I have read that definition too many times to count and it has always seemed to me to be misleading. They mention one particle doing a loop, and several particles doing loops, all impossible if the work done equals zero, so no closed loop is possible. But it has always seemed obvious to me that if extra particles are added who do not need to make a loop, but whose sole purpose is to move the original particles away from their mind numbing loop so that they can actually complete a loop because work was done for them, then gravity has done some work on the extra particles resulting in the former particles performing loops.
This does not nullify the original definition of a conservative force, but it does leave the way open to using gravity as an energy source. At the end of the day, we are certain that Bessler’s wheel worked; he said that the weights were the actual perpetual motion; weights fall because gravity makes them; the wheel will turn when out of balance. Therefore I can only assume that the work in rotating the wheel is done by gravity.
If you wish to post a drawing on this blog, I have created a permanent page but you will have to email it to me so I can add it. The email information is there. Click on the ‘submitted Drawings’ link at the the top right side of the column on the right. If interest is scarce I’ll probably remove it eventually.
I have posted a drawing on behalf RAF, but I dont know whether all of it is present, pending confirmation that it is ok.
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
JC
In an overbalanced wheel the falling weights must always lose a little more energy than is taken back into the rising weights or the wheel won't turn. The trick is to find a design that actually stays out of balance as it turns. I've tried dozens of designs over the years I thought would do this but none ever did. I know it has to be possible because Bessler did it and it's supposed to be simple. But if it's so simple why hasn't anyone else found it in the last three hundred years??? With thousands looking for it you would think someone else would find that simple design by now. But nothing! His wheels couldn't have been hoaxed but why no duplicates after all this time?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the reason is because he had an extra novel gimmick that did not occur to anybody else in the last three centuries? I think it was his "connectedness principle" which is occasionally mentioned. But what was that? Some way of connecting things together, but what things and how? Had to be the levers in his wheels. How do you connect levers together? Rods? Gears? Springs? Ropes? More levers? Maybe some weird combination of all of them? Whatever it was it kept the cog of the weights on one side of the wheel during rotation. A wheel was off balance when it was stationary and it stayed that way as it turned. That's the only way they could work if they were overbalanced as he said they were.
DeleteThe theory, at least, of a perpetual motion wheel is really quite simple. All of the weights are the same. They continually swing out on the down side and back in on the upside. It's as simple as that. Sam Peppiatt
DeleteIt's true there isn't any energy in a force. It's kind of a clever way to imply that it won't work. Also, Why does a falling weight have to lose energy? I should think a falling weight would be gaining energy, as it falls. Sam Peppiatt
DeleteAnd the idea of calling gravity a conservative force, and there for some how unusable for some un-explainable reason, is just more bull Sh-t in an attempt to discredit the possibility of PM.
DeleteSam asked "Also, Why does a falling weight have to lose energy? I should think a falling weight would be gaining energy, as it falls."
DeleteAssuming no friction present, a single falling weight does not really lose any energy. It only loses GPE or gravitational potential energy by converting it into KE or kinetic energy but the total amount of energy of the weight, which is the sum of its GPE and KE at any moment, stays the same. In a rotating wheel having only a single weight on its rim, the weight constantly loses GPE while gaining the same amount of KE when its on the descending side. When its on the ascending side it does the opposite. There it will constantly lose its KE while gaining the same amount of GPE. When you have diametrically opposite pair of weights on a balanced wheel or a two weight wheel, you can think of the gained KE of the descending side weight being immediately taken up by the ascending side weight to increase its GPE so that weight doesn't have to take it from its own KE and make itself slow down as it does. This is possible because the two weights are connected together by the structure of the wheel which acts like a giant lever. That results in the speed of the two weights around the wheel staying the same as the descending side weight is prevented from speeding up and the ascending side weight is prevented from slowing down.
In an overbalanced wheel this situation is different. The descending side weight being farther from the axle than the ascending side weight is always dropping a little faster than the ascending side weight rises even though both weights move through the same vertical distance as the wheel turns. The descending side weight always loses GPE and gains KE a little faster than the ascending side weight gains GPE. Since there is no need for the EXTRA amount of gained KE by the descending side weight to be taken up by just the ascending side weight to increase its GPE that then allows it to be transferred to all parts of the wheel to increase the KE of all those parts so their total KE increases and that makes the entire wheel increase its speed or accelerate. Everything here applies to a wheel which has any number of diametrically opposed pairs of weights in it just so long as they are even spaced out around the wheel.
What must happen in an overbalanced wheel is not that hard to understand but you have to think about it little. Most pm seekers aren't thinking much about the process. They just try to get the wheel to stay out of balance because they intuitively know it will have to work. They are right but there is a real scientific reason why they are right. The deeper question is where does that extra lost GPE and gained KE of the descending side weights come from? Right now that "energy gotten from mass of wheel parts" concept pushed by Ken B seems logical and I can't think of any other source although there could be one.
But none of this is possible without a mechanism that keeps the wheel overbalanced at all times as it turns. If you don't have the right mechanism then all you've got is another failed wheel. It's as simple as that. Bessler obviously had the right mechanism.
paul r.
paul r. Isn't it the difference in mechanical advantage of the down side over the up side. It's like a teeter-totter----I think. Sam
DeleteYes, the **mechanism**; I'm working on it; but it's not there yet, Sam
DeleteGood post dear John!
ReplyDeleteLet's think about what Bessler demonstrated in Kassel. He could start the wheel with a simple push... It was very hard to stop the wheel... but when it is stopped, it stayed like that! How is that even possible for a PM?
For any type of machine this is a very impressive feat. Even with a non-PM machine, it is just darn hard to achieve.
What I am trying to say, Bessler was an extraordinary engineer. Keep that in mind John. It may help you...
Yellow, If the weights swing out to the left the wheel will turn CCW, if they swing out to the right it will turn CW. If they hang straight down on both sides, the wheel will stop. And I have to agree; HOW the hell he did that is beyond me!! Sam Peppiatt
DeleteThe simple reason why there is no "excess impetus" in our wheels.
ReplyDeleteTake a vertical line down through the axle. On one side add up all Gravity Potential Energy of objects with mass on that side of the wheel. Add to that all the Kinetic Energy those sames masses have. That is Total Energy A. Do the same for the other side of the wheel. That is Total Energy B. Total A = Total B.
I'm sorry; that doesn't make any sense-----------Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteTrying again. Take 2 bricks and place them on frictionless slopes at the same vertical height. One slopes to the left at 30 degrees. One slopes to the right at 45 degrees. Let both bricks go at the same time. They slide down the slopes. After a few seconds the one on the 45 slope has less gpe and more ke than the one on the 30 slope. But at any vertical height, regardless of time interval, for that same vertical height checked, both bricks have the same gpe and ke. Which total to the original gpe when placed on the slope. Total A = Total B.
ReplyDeleteBut, so what??? Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteWhat I fail to understand, is what point you are trying to make?? Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteIt's the reason there is no "excess impetus" in our wheels. Or put another way, why the energy sum of both halves is always equal, or another way, why weights can not fall faster on the descending side of the wheel (without additional energy input) as has been suggested by paul r. to gain wheel momentum.
ReplyDeleteWhen the CoG of the mechanisms in one's wheel does not stay on the descending side as a wheel rotates, the wheel only acts like a giant pendulum. When released, the wheel will rotate through a few degrees as its CoG swings below the center of the axle and then rises on the other side. It then stops and reverses direction just like a pendulum would do. Someone named this motion "keeling" but I haven't seen that term used in years. After a few oscillations to use up the wheel's KE by overcoming air and bearing friction, the CoG will "settle down" and just hang directly below the center of the axle at what Bessler would have called the "punctum quietus" or point of rest and the wheel will stop turning.
ReplyDeleteFor the CoG to remain on the descending side of a wheel as it rotates, the CoG must be constantly rising and doing so at the same speed that the wheel is turning and trying to make it drop. If it does so, it will actually appear stationary to an outside observer although it is constantly rising relative to the wheel turning around it. That constant rising of the CoG as the mechanisms inside of a wheel shift about requires a source of energy. There is no way around this detail. That energy has to come from somewhere. Bessler's critics claimed it was being provided by wound up springs or compressed air in tanks hidden inside of the axles or drums of his wheels. We are confident, however, that was not the case. Here's Bessler's answer to his critics from page 245 of John Collins' version of AP:
"Dear Enemy, please continue to think that it is your duty to lampoon my work, because it leads in directions you may not wish it to go! You have the spirit of a slanderer. But Truth will triumph, and will reveal the confusion in your "thoughts". People of common sense have always been scorned, and it doesn't really matter who the scoundrels who perpetrate such untruths are, because, enemy, all you write comes from arrogance and envy and amounts to nothing more than slander and waste paper. Write as many lies as you like in your angry attempts to destroy my Wheel of Wonder! In its interior it gains for how else does it grow out of balance?"
Note that he acknowledges that the CoG is constantly rising or "gains" so that the wheel will "grow out of balance" or stay overbalanced.
paul r.
The above discussion is going over old ground and is well know to all who are looking for the solution. As Sam said, ‘so what?’ All this talk of potential and kinetic energy boils down to one thing, overbalancing and how do we achieve it, continuously.
DeleteJC
Agreed, but when it comes time to discuss how to achieve the necessary sustained overbalance that's when the discussion usually ends. Most with an idea clam up for fear their ideas will be stolen or they won't be able to patent them because they are "in the public domain" after being disclosed. Those without ideas have nothing to discuss. Those with ideas and willing to share them have no way of uploading images here and can only give confusing descriptions of their ideas. It would be nice if this blog allowed posters to upload drawings which we could all comment on if we wanted to. All we can do at present is just post a link to an image file on some other site which is better than nothing. Many, however, don't have accounts on sites that provide free storage for images and videos. There's always youtube for videos, but not everyone wants to make videos to show a sketch or two. That Ken guy mentioned in the last blog has an account on photobucket.com that he put his updated cartoon on so maybe some here who want to make sketches to share with others could set up accounts there also. I think it's free up to a certain amount of storage space.
DeleteI am happy to post any drawings for anybody, just email me the drawings. Don’t use email address at top of blog. Use my initials at f-e.co.uk (abbreviated)
DeleteJC
Sounds like you guys are describing a wheel that is balanced. That defeats every thing. The whole idea is to keep the wheel Out of Balance, (OOB).
DeleteIf the wheel is OOB it will turn. I repeat; your argument makes no sense to me, what so ever----------------Sam Peppiatt
Spacecrafts take advantage of the phenomenon called Gravity assist... Which simply means that we can use Gravity directly, by all means...
DeleteSo the saying by some that we cannot use Gravity is nullified...
To use or take advantage of Gravity an object has to be in an appropriate position in the first place...
In the case of Bessler's wheel the weights have to be raised soon after their Fall...
To achieve this task Bessler found a very ingenious way where the weights were able to both fall and automatically rise up in quick succession due to the swinging act incoroperated in their moment in a very tricky manner...
We are not able to understand or believe this because no one could successfully recreate it for the last 300 years or so...
This is because there is only one way of achieving it by designing the lever-weight combination in a very unique manner... the bessler's way...
This calls for out of the box thinking which is simply not happening...
If Gravity is directly used by spacecrafts as Gravity assist it goes to prove beyond doubt that Gravity can be used...
Similarly, Gravity is also directly used to power BW though it is hard to imagine by many...
Weights act in pairs... One lifts another...
It is just that this act must go on continuously or unceasingly...
If we think like laymen and use conventional methods we aren't going anywhere...
Infact, our daily discussions should center around this topic...
I am very sure then that this mystery will no more remain mysterical...
@Sam,
DeleteThey are talking about OOB wheels and all say that you got to have one to get your pm. They are just trying to figure out how OOB wheels work other than the obvious reason. But they are right in that you have to have something extra to make them work and that's a supply of energy. It can't come from outside the wheel. It must come from inside of it and not from springs or compressed air. The CoG of the weights has to rise just as fast as the turning wheel tries to lower it and that takes energy. Amazing that the CoG stays the same height in the Earth's gravity while that happens which does not change its GPE relative to the Earth yet it must keep rising compared to the turning wheel. It's like a person on a down escalator who has to keep running up it just to stay in the same place! He has to expend energy to do that. His energy comes from chemical reactions in his muscles. In an OOB wheel there are no muscles only mechanisms shifting around. That shifting releases the energy needed to keep raising the CoG. Bessler found those mechanisms. Now it's our turn. Good luck finding it because it won't be easy as thousands and thousands learned the hard way after years and decades of futile struggling.
paul r. I think you are exactly right. Try to think of it as extra torque and or leverage, instead of extra energy. If the weights on the down side are farther from the axle, they will have more leverage and there for, will lift the weights on the up side, which are now closer to the axle.
DeleteAnd, again, you are right; the **mechanism** to do that is the real problem. Sam Peppiatt
No. 13:59 Yes, yes, I see now what you are driving at. And I agree. I suggest thinking of it in terms of extra leverage, rather than extra energy. Ii makes it a lot easier to understand how it might work. Thanks, and, you are right it has been a struggle-------------Sam
DeletePendulums are the key to it. For the following reasons: They are very easy to shift to one side, or the other, at any point on the wheel. This means, the shift can occur at the 12:00 position or soon after. Which is critical. Also, they are self centering or self resetting, they reset by them selves. Last but not least, centrifugal forces have little or no effect on them, because they don't rotate. This is important; I think anything else would have problems because of CF. Anyway that's the way it's starting to shape up. FWEIW Sam Peppiatt
DeleteTo@, I think that simply by swinging the pendulum(s) outward @ the 12:00 position, constantly keeps the CoG very high up on the wheel, or top heavy, as I like to think of it. Sam
DeleteI don't understand, what is my point?? Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDelete18:56 What? I didn't post this--------------Sam
DeleteHello John, Please spell out email address where drawings may be sent. Thanks
ReplyDeleteUse the initials I sign at end of every comment, but in lower case, at free-energy.co.uk
DeleteJC
@anon 19:15
DeleteJohn's probably not spelling out his email address because he's afraid of blog robots reading it, the address being sold to spammers, and his inbox getting stuffed with their annoying crap. But I think you're supposed to contact him using this address: jc(AT)free-energy(DOT)co(DOT)uk. Just replace the (AT) with @ and the (DOT) with .
Paul R. and Anon 13:59 make good points. If we could somehow actually see the CoG of all of the weights and levers inside of a working overbalanced wheel's turning drum it would appear to be floating in the air inside of the drum. What is actually happening is that since it is to one side of the center of the axle the offset CoG drops a little and makes the drum also turn a little. Just as soon as that happens the levers and their weights inside the drum shift and immediately supply the energy needed to lift the CoG back again to its starting point in space. Then the cycle begins again as the CoG again drops a little and moves the drum a little and then again the drum's mechanisms immediately shift and return the CoG to its starting point. The CoG becomes like that man walking up the down escalator. But imagine that the escalator had not motor driving it and it was actually the man's weight on its steps that made it move.
ReplyDeleteThe drops and rises of the CoG of the levers and weights are actually microscopic and happening so quickly that they make the CoG appear to be floating at a fixed height above the floor. This requires that the wheel's mechanisms are in a constant state of shifting as the drum turns. I notice that is exactly what happens in that video Ken made for youtube. All of the levers except those moving between 4:30 and 6:00 o'clock are in constant motion as the wheel turns. Imo, you need to have such constant shifting going on in your wheel's mechanisms if you are to have any hope of your wheel actually working. If there is any noticeable pause in the shifting of the levers and their attached weights then their CoG will only drop during that time and if the pause is too long the CoG will drop right down to below the axle center and that's the end of the torque you need to drive your wheel. In fact if there is any orientation of your wheel possible that allows the CoG to reach that dead spot below the axle center the CoG of your wheel will eventually find that spot and come to a stop in it and your wheel will stop turning. Every failed overbalanced wheel design I've ever seen had that problem. Many wheel builders are aware of the dead spots in their wheels and hope that the wheel can build up enough momentum as its CoG drops to carry it through the dead spots so the CoG will reset itself again. Sounds good but it's probably not possible. The CoG of Bessler's wheels could never reach such a dead spot and he said so with this quote of his:
"... these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the center of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."
Lots of good comments on this blog so far which I haven't seen on other sites!
Henry L.
My wheel has six levers with weights on their ends that use springs to give them a boost to the rim as they pass the top of the wheel. But they are not connected together in any way so I guess they don't have that connection principle mentioned above. Any hope it can work?
Delete@Anon 00:16
DeleteI can't tell you or anyone else here if their wheel will work or not based on a quick description or sketch of it. To tell if it's a runner you have to actually build it and test it or make an accurate sim of it and run that. I found this video of a wheel someone made that uses eight levers which are connected together with springs. It may or may not be similar to what you are working on. It has connectedness as required for a Bessler wheel but I think it would have been better to have the springs go from a lever to the drum instead of from one lever to the one ahead of it. The springs are actually interfering with the ends of the levers moving out to the rim as their go toward the 3:00 position. It was a nice try and must have taken a lot of work to construct but it was just another nonrunner. If he'd made a sim first he would have realized that it was a nonrunner and could then try making changes to improve it before actually constructing it or just moved on to a different design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uolz18oSseE
Henry L.
"The above discussion is going over old ground and is well know to all who are looking for the solution. All this talk of potential and kinetic energy boils down to one thing,
ReplyDeleteoverbalancing and how do we achieve it, continuously. JC"
I am in the camp that believes the continuous overbalancing was caused by nothing more than clever use of known mechanical principles. And this was Bessler's "True Mechanical Perpetual Motion Principle". His 'other principles' talked about being different variants employed to augment the one principle that governs his wheels and makes them true PM gravity wheels. He clearly articulates this premiss. It is beyond doubt that this is what he believes to be an accurate description.
In one respect 'anon' 17 Feb 20 6.41 is correct in his reply to John.
It is the very big elephant in the room.
"Agreed, but when it comes time to discuss how to achieve the necessary sustained overbalance that's when the discussion usually ends. Most with an idea clam up for fear their ideas will be stolen or they won't be able to patent them because they are "in the public domain" after being disclosed. Those without ideas have nothing to discuss."
At least Ken did give a theory of how that sustained imbalance (asymmetric torque - accumulated momentum) is generated. With the added bonus of an additional hypothesis of how mass can decay into energy to balance the energy budget of his simulated self-sustaining wheels, which work according to him purely on a minuscule asymmetric torque generated.
Kudos to him for presenting a full theory. Even if I think his optimism is misplaced.
-fletcher
The more I think about Ken B's approach to explaining where the energy B's wheels put out came from the more sense it makes to me. Where else could it come from but the weights inside of the drum? If the descending side weights are always dropping on average faster than the ascending side ones are rising on average then the descending side weights would have to be losing more GPE per microsecond than the ascending side weights are regaining per microsecond. That excess lost GPE by the descending side weights does not just disappear. It is immediately used to increase the GPE of the CoG of all the weights by raising it a little. Then as the CoG begins to drop again it accelerates the whole wheel or can power outside machinery attached to its axle for a microsecond. Then more lost excess GPE from the descending side weights becomes available and the CoG having dropped a little is raised again to start the whole cycle all over again. Yes, it makes a lot of sense. To get this effect all you need is a wheel that stays overbalanced as it turns. That's the hard part! Theories are a lot easier to spin than wheels that stay overbalanced as they turn are to build!
DeleteKen's been working on his various wheel theories for years now. Here's a drawing he made and uploaded to bwf back in June of 2006 which shows that a weight on the descending side of an overbalanced wheel has to drop faster than a diametrically opposed weight on the ascending side rises.
Deletehttps://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/overbalancedwheeltheory_101.jpg
FWIW .. yes, Ken has been working on the same theory for at least a decade before writing his book about his mechanical solution to Bessler's wheels and PM Principle. That being Persisting Imbalance ! Many here agree that Mechanically Arranged Continuous Overbalance is the key to success. I for one don't agree with the small amount of torque he proposes (leaving the veracity of his sim in the sidelines) and that the Merseburg wheel took 12 minutes to reach its operating rpm (in John's last blog). Johan Andreas Weise in his Testimonial says it took less than a minute to do 40 revolutions. Ken argues a case of mis-translation (btw I didn't know he could read old High German). I mentioned that everything must be read in context which was the complete testimonial. IMO Ken was showing classic confirmation Bias towards his sim results. N.B. I went to enter more context from that testimonial but John had shut down comments.
DeleteSo I'll add the further context from Weise's Testimonial here for consideration about whether Ken's low torque/power and very long run up is correct.
Weise says two important things which I quote from John's DT where it is reproduced.
"it then began to rotate of its own accord with (page 122) such force that within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times,"
further on ...
"This far end was attached to a chest full of bricks - about 70 lb weight in all – and this load was raised and lowered several times by the machine. The most noteworthy detail regarding this particular experiment was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running “empty”."
Point to note is that Weise says it ran at the same rpm loaded or unloaded. Ken says his sim was continually slowing down as it raised the bricks, until it came to a stop.
"the inventor then had the machine replaced on its original bearings, and, as before, with the slightest of touches, the wheel was set revolving once more, soon regaining its original quite considerable velocity.
This was, perhaps, the thing which was most admired by the learned mathematicians and other enquiring minds who were present."
Weise says it SOON regained its original velocity. That dovetails with the less than one minute comment earlier.
Also he says this rapid acceleration up to speed (the SOON) was perhaps the thing most admired by some of the audience.
On reading the whole Testimonial from Weise it is hard to write things off as isolated mis-translations because the further context reinforces the general picture of quick acceleration and even rpm even under load.
All these things Ken's simulations can't do ! Hence my previous comments about Ken's optimism/confidence being misplaced, probably as a result of confirmation bias creeping in over the decades, IMO. And so anybody quoting Ken's work, who thinks it seminal, should also be conversant and cognizant with the background and context of what others wrote at the time who witnessed B's. demonstrations.
-f
@Fletcher
DeleteI tend to go along with the view that Bessler's wheels had long acceleration times because of that sim done in the last blog by Paul R. for the Kassel wheel showing it was 8 minutes and a second one done by someone else for the Merseburg wheel showing it was over 12 minutes. Every one convinced Bessler's wheels will be the solution to providing pollutionless free energy to power the whole world and fight climate change wants to believe Bessler's wheels were very powerful and will interpret the ambiguous translations of witness testimony we have about them to support that view. But that's also a form of confirmation bias caused by excessive optimism and wishful thinking.
Weise's use of the word "soon" to describe a wheel's acceleration is only a relative word. It would be short if compared to a wheel taking a half hour to reach its full speed and long if compared to a wheel taking only a fraction of a minute.
I'm sure that when the Merseburg wheel first started lifting the 70 pound load there would have been no obvious change from the wheel's unloaded running speed. But it only lifted that load to the top of the first floor of Bessler's rented home in Merseburg which was probably only about 16 feet or so. If the wheel did not slow to a stop before the load hit the pulley outside of the room the wheel was in then it would have torn the pulley and the arm it was attached to away from the outside wall and the entire load and rope would have smashed against the window and probably gone right through it and into the room!
If you believe that the Merseburg wheel was turning at its full speed and the load was also rising at full speed when it reached the pulley then you have to believe they were able to stop a 550 pound 12 foot diameter wheel rotating at 40 rpms in about a second or so. That seems unlikely to me unless they actually had someone grab onto the rim of the drum and let it carry him up several feet off the floor (but I do recall mention that someone did try that with the much slower rotating Kassal wheel and it lifted him off of the floor and stopped that wheel). I think the Merseburg wheel constantly slowed as it reached the pulley and Bessler had previously carefully adjusted the weight of the load it lifted to make sure that the wheel stopped turning and the load also stopped rising just before it hit the pulley. The last thing he needed while trying to find buyers for his wheels was an accident with one of them showing how much property damage it could do!
All of the load lifting tests of his wheels were actually braking tests and braking tests always involve the slowing usually to a stop of whatever is being braked. One must not overestimate the constant power of Bessler's wheels based on such tests. They only show the total rotational energy that built up in a wheel after several minutes of acceleration had passed and the wheel finally reached its full unloaded speed. The true measure of their power was determined by the maximum load they could lift constantly from their axles at start up and that depended on their starting torques which were very low as Paul R. showed. The maximum torque for the Kassal wheel he estimated was only 7 foot pounds which was based on a calculated torque value from an experiment done with the Merseburg wheel of 3.5 foot pounds and again these torques only existed when the wheels were just started. The fact that these wheels reached a final constant speed when unloaded shows their torques would drop to almost zero at those speeds and that most likely was due to CF interfering with their inner mechanisms ability to maintain the CoG of their weights and levers at their maximum horizontal distances from the centers of their axles during drum rotation.
Henry L.
@ Henry L. .. telling us the same thing over and over, out of context from a Witness Testimonial, and repeating Ken's speculations almost verbatim about how his sim purportedly works is naive.
DeleteOne minute is one minute, in any language ! One minute can't be mis-translated and certainly not by a scholarly translator skilled in 18th century old German who was also a mathematician.
I'd call tone minute SOON. And a reason for the mathematicians and inquiring minds to admire it more than any other reason.
-f
@Fletcher
DeleteSorry if I sound like I'm repeating myself, but about that quote:
"...it then began to rotate of its own accord with such force that within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times,..."
Yes a minute is a minute and the ones back in the early 18th century were the same as our present ones. But you have to consider WHEN that minute took place. You are automatically assuming that minute was counted starting from the moment that the stationary drum was set in motion. Using that meaning is a BIG mistake! You are of course free to accept whatever meaning you want for any of Bessler's quotes but if you attach the wrong meaning to it that error will only make it far more difficult if not impossible for you to make any real progress.
It's obvious to me that you are negative toward the wheel design Ken found. Maybe at this time you are just not ready to seriously consider it or what the rest of his research revealed. I too was resistant at first and thought I'd quickly find out that he was just another delusional pm chaser as I read through his book. I discovered the exact opposite! He successfully disproves many of the assumptions we have all been making about Bessler's wheels for years now and shows how they conflict with each other and often make no mechanical sense. I found his interpretations made a lot more sense. I can't go into all of them here but again I would strongly recommend that you obtain his book and study it. I think if you do you won't regret it and will find that it will answer most of the question you have about Bessler's wheels.
Henry L.
To Add : I also believe the one true mechanical gravity PM principle to be ordinary mechanics used in a very counter-intuitive way. Which is why no one to date has fathomed or deduced it.
ReplyDelete-f
Yes I believe the answer is simple but counter-intuitive. B said he found the solution where everyone had looked (paraphrased).
DeleteJC
If it was as you say "counter intuitive", then why did Karl say that is was so simple that he was surprised no one else had found it? That would seem to imply it was actually a very obvious solution. Also, he says that it was so simple a carpenter's apprentice could understand it and build a duplicate after examining it for a while. Maybe it wasn't as "counter intuitive" as you and Fletcher think it was? But, then again, if it was so obvious, why has no one else rediscovered it after three hundred years? (I'm assuming that Ken hasn't rediscovered it although he may have for all I know.)
DeleteUnfortunately, no one wants to know how the wheel worked, Sam Peppiatt
DeleteSam, everyone here wants to know how Bessler's wheels worked or they wouldn't be here! Meanwhile, here's a video you may find of interest. It's not Bessler's wheel, but it shows what one pm wheel chaser was able to do with a single spring!
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3I2zeoUbzg
Right! Sam Peppiatt
Deletethat 'dominant flywheel' video has to be a hoax. but i don't know for sure how it was done. maybe magnets hidden under the table?
DeleteEither electro magnets under the table creating a variable field, or the good old boy, a fan to the side blowing air onto the flywheel. If it has low frictions then the Magnus Effect creates low pressure areas and revolution. This could be supported by the fact that it revolved at higher rpm when he moved the spring weight back. No physical reason for this making any difference to energy output. Note he didn't give it a slight push and then it sped up (gained RKE/Momentum). He gave it a bigger push start and it slowed a little and then stayed at the higher rpm. Hair dryer on blow wave and flywheel turns faster. Or solenoid controller from the magnetic field control. He kept it in one spot and rotated it, not move it about on the table top, and you couldn't see a wide view of the setup. The old boy had a calming confidence building voice but still a hoax.
DeleteJohn, I went to free energy website and tapped the CONTACT button but nothing happened. please give detailed steps for sending drawings. How do I use initials : jc ? Thanks
ReplyDeleteYou must email me at the address I have given, no need to go to the website. JC
Delete@ Anon 8:29. Counter-intuitive doesn't mean it must be complex, it can still be simple. Counter-intuitive generally means 'contrary to common-sense'. So it is the opposite of obvious. And that's why B's. mechanical PM Principle has not been found, to date.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure if any one of us saw it in operation we'd say two things. After studying it some, we'd say "that's obvious, now that I've seen it". And, "I wonder why no one else thought of it".
We might even stretch to "gee, it looks 'at face value' like many other wheel attempts".
Discovery is the easy part. Asking the right questions a lot harder.
-f
-f wrote "I'm sure if any one of us saw it in operation we'd say two things. After studying it some, we'd say "that's obvious, now that I've seen it". And, "I wonder why no one else thought of it"
DeleteThose are exactly what I said when I saw the Ken B wheel video.
It wasn't what I said.
Delete-f
Me neither. JC
DeleteOMG! It looks like there's an unholy alliance of JC and F against KB at the moment. But each is actually in an ongoing struggle of his own to prove to the world that he and only he has the correct version of JB's wheel!
DeleteEach rival has his strengths and weaknesses. KB has an ego the size of Mount Everest, but he has produced a "unique" wheel video and a "magnum opus" on JB and his wheels big enough to choke a horse. JC is a well known fixture on various free energy websites and has republished translations of JB's books that have expanded his story. He claims to have the correct version of JB's wheel based on the clues he's found but so far has only made broken promises of "revealing all" while showing nothing. F is "respected" on various free energy sites and appears competent enough in mechanics to have been able to sim JC's past designs and shown they were unworkable. He also claims to have a correct version of JB's wheels but, like JC, has not revealed it. No doubt he has his own unique set of clues upon which it is based that are different than those of JC and KB.
At this time the three seem roughly equal in their powers. Who will ultimately succeed in having his version of JB's wheel accepted as being "the" one and only true and unchallengeable version? Which one will go down in history as having finally solved the JB wheel mystery and made the world of established science take notice and applaud and reward him for his big discovery? Well, I think I'll hold off placing my bet until I actually see what JC and F have come up with and the clues it is based on if and when they decide to finally show it.
Anonymous and PROUD of it!
Further correction .. I did some behind the scenes sim work on JC's ideas over 4 years ago when he reached out and invited some input on certain aspects. IIRC I signed an nda. I have not publicly commented whether it is/was viable or not. Since then he has significantly reworked certain elements he informed me. I wish him the very best of British and have no more knowledge of where he's at today than the next man.
Delete-f
An anonymous, a nobody; but then most critics are nobody's who have never accomplished any thing. You can add me to that alliance, Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteAAPOI wrote .. "He (-f) also claims to have a correct version of JB's wheels but, like JC, has not revealed it. No doubt he has his own unique set of clues upon which it is based that are different than those of JC and KB."
ReplyDeleteYou are entirely wrong about me and put words in my mouth. I have not claimed any such thing (a correct version of JB's wheels and not revealed it). I have always been open about the elephant in the room. FYI I started a topic at BW.com outlining 'MY' Hypothesis and Theory behind how 'I' might deduce a True Mechanical PM Principle, from first principles. I then made connections to Bessler's MT9 'like' series in JC's MT, as I saw them, that pointed me to the Jacking system and triple entity systems of Torque Cancelling from dual systems followed by the introduction of a third Torque Imbalance system. The <>> iconology I used as an abbreviation.
I shared many pictures and sims in that topic for discussion and to 'reveal' my directions . I invited input from any one interested enough to discuss it with me. The topic is still a work in progress as I could not incorporate all 3 systems into a single sim as a working demonstration of the Theory behind my Mechanical PM Principle. I also think it likely that there is only ONE True Mechanical PM Principle ! Whether that PM Principle is the same as B's. remains to be seen in the fullness of time.
Other than that my clues are the same as everybody elses.
I privately continue to work on my Theory for the PM Principle and the mechanics, and resolve these sim issues. I believe since then I have made significant progress on all fronts ! But it ain't over till the fat lady sings !
-f
-f wrote:
Delete"...that pointed me to the Jacking system and triple entity systems of Torque Cancelling from dual systems followed by the introduction of a third Torque Imbalance system."
Thanks for clarifying that!
"...since then I have made significant progress on all fronts..."
Something tells me that if and when your progress finally reaches a certain critical level like producing an undeniably working glitch free sim, you'll be clamming up tighten than JC does now and will be able to give him lessons in secrecy!
What would be the point ? If what I theorize is the ONE PM Principle then there is probably more than one way to enact that principle mechanically. The point was to discover it. And share it. The topic and thread at BW.com was to test the members appetite to openly discuss a new direction and the logic behind it. Ultimately most either couldn't get their head around it, or interested enough to join a discussion, or do their own investigations of the mechanics required. Or some other motive for not getting involved. So be it ! I've worked alone for years so quite happy to plug away when I'm able. Refine the mechanics if I can. What open sourcing (mine and others) has taught me over the years is that human nature is fickle. A working model would be the best proof of concept and undeniable. I had a second table top static model planned last year and I will probably knock that up in the next 6 months or so. It's quite different from the first. Then who knows, depending on how it all goes. Doesn't pay to count your chickens in this game. One step at a time !
DeleteMaybe I will write a book, publish some sims on You Tube. Start a blog. Yeah no, it's been done.
DeleteMaybe I'll just update my thread from time to time, as long as I continue to believe in my Mechanically Balancing of Opposite Torques Systems, plus addition of a further Torque Imbalance System, PM Principle <>>.
Whether you choose to think it has any merit and do your own investigations, or wait to be spoon fed, is entirely up to you. But the fundamental Principle is no longer the elephant in the room and is out there in the public arena regardless. And not before time IMO.
-f
@fletcher
DeleteI'm sure everyone here wishes you, John, and Ken the best of luck with your efforts. Ultimately, it's not really that important who achieves success, but that it IS finally achieved. This rest of this century hopefully will not turn out looking exactly like the years between us and Bessler that are only a history of failures and hoaxes. We need some REAL progress for a change! Ken's a showman type like P. T. Barnum so he's getting a lot of attention at the moment. But, soon someone else will come along and steal the spotlight from him. Of course, if someone actually does make a working wheel based on that design he claims is Bessler's, then the spotlight will be on him for a long time to come! I'm sure he would just love that!
You say you are looking for some general "PM Principle" from which various different types of pm machines might be constructed. That sounds like the pm version of Einstein's "Unified Field Theory"! Well, such might exist. But, what if there is only ONE way of achieving pm that Bessler just happened to find?! In that case, you are looking for the secret of HIS wheels and are no different in your quest than John or Ken or anybody else over at BWF whether they know it or not.
I think, if you are meant to find success, it will begin with working sims upon which later working physical models will be based. I agree with whoever previously said that sims are the "wave of the future". They are here to stay no matter how hesitant the old timer pm chasers are to try them.
paul r.
Your moderate words mostly echo my own sentiments paul r.
DeletePaul r. wrote .. "You say you are looking for some general "PM Principle" from which various different types of pm machines might be constructed. That sounds like the pm version of Einstein's "Unified Field Theory"! Well, such might exist.
But, what if there is only ONE way of achieving pm that Bessler just happened to find?! In that case, you are looking for the secret of HIS wheels and are no different in your quest than John or Ken or anybody else over at BWF whether they know it or not."
Two things - Firstly B. said his was the True Mechanical PM Principle. He then talked in various places about 'other' principles in play. When read in conjunction with MT (unpublished by B. but reproduced by JC) he seems to suggest that different 'mechanical' principles could be augmented to work with the addition of other structures and apparatus etc. This talk of plural 'principles' seemed mechanical in nature but imo unrelated to his overarching "True Mechanical PM Principle".
Secondly, I believe I have good reason to believe that there is more than one mechanical way to achieve the continuous imbalance conditions necessary. Some more efficient than others. I have leapfrogged ahead in my own research in that regard, as far as utility and efficiency of sim design options is concerned. I haven't explored all the possible ways he might have used and been inferred from MT, if indeed he did. The doors open !
So I suggest there is indeed one "Unified Theory of PM", that once known can be applied to different mechanical conditions/apparatus successfully.
Here's something to idle away the time. Bessler's latter wheels were not free standing. The support posts were bolted to floor and ceiling. Not much is known about this facet of B's. earlier wheels, his first prototype and Gera etc. I assume they were free standing but I don't know. That would seem logical. They may have worked on less powerful, or less efficient mechanical principles than the latter more powerful wheels which did need the extra support, IMO. So it might be that B. used different internal mechanical arrangements for some wheels and not the same arrangement on steroids or scaled up for others as one design/principle advocates like Ken suggest. If Ken et al are correct then so are your statements above about us all striving to find the same ONE mechanical setup to give continuous overbalancing conditions. I beg to differ.
-f
Here are some Bessler quotes from the BW.com wiki clue page that are interesting to me in the context of my contentions of a Universal PM Principle/Law !
Delete"Note: The Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise because it worked on quite different principles. - AP pg 352"
Different principles !
"For I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile." - AP pg 271
Why earlier ones had been wrong !
"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely" - DT pg 191
Bessler describes his LAW of Perpetual Motion.
I expect there will varying opinions about what they mean. Some narrower interpretations of a single correct mechanical design; and some giving more scope for a Law of Mechanics (mechanical application/approach) to govern more than one viable mechanical solution.
-f
Because I actually read Ken's book and finally achieved the "sublime state" that he refers to as "Total Bessler Awareness" (lol! but he's very serious about his book having this effect on those that read it!) let me make some quick comments on these clues:
Delete"Note: The Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise because it worked on quite different principles. - AP pg 352"
>>>The Draschwitz wheel was a one way wheel and the Merseburg wheel was a two way wheel. The Draschwitz wheel contained felt pieces to deaden the impacts of its levers against stops inside of the drum. Bessler installed these because he was afraid the sounds would give those examining the wheels too much information about how they worked. Bessler did away with them in the Merseburg wheel and that wheel which contained two one way wheels back to back required extra metal latches in order to make it work as a two way wheel. Those latches would flip around during drum rotation and were noisy. IIRC they made a clattering sound. The latches had to grab onto the levers to work and the felt pieces must have been interfering with that and making the latches unreliable.
"Why earlier ones had been wrong !"
>>>Yes, the tabletop models he made before the one finished in late 1711 had been wrong because they didn't work.
"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely" - DT pg 191
>>>His "laws of Perpetual Motion" are just his preponderance and connectedness principles and mean that an overbalanced wheel will keep rotating if it can stay out of balance as it rotates because of the action of the connectedness principle. If Ken's version of his wheel is correct that overbalancing requires a very precise counter balancing of five of the eight levers inside of a one way wheel's drum. The arrangement of the drum's eight levers puts their CoG slightly onto the descending side of the axle and then as rotation begins and the CoG of the eight levers begins to drop the precise counter balance of those five levers gets disturbed. They react to this by immediately removing two of the levers from the group of five and replacing them with a different two so the number in the group always stays at five levers. That restores the counter balancing of the five levers in the new group and also lifts the CoG of all eight of the levers right back to where it started. If you study his youtube video carefully you will see this happening during every 45 degrees of wheel rotation. It's really an amazing effect. It's a self adjusting process and something you would think a clock and organ maker like Bessler would have come up with. Being totally obsessed with making a working pm wheel also helps!
Henry L.
I found a photo of that horse mentioned above that tried to eat Ken's book. It got stuck in his throat and almost killed him!
ReplyDeleteThe poor animal couldn't cough it out, but fortunately his owner was able to reach down into his throat in time before he choked to death on it and pull out the biggest chunk of it. It was a close call. Imo, every copy of Ken's book should have a warning on its front and back covers in large block letters that clearly states "CAUTION! Severe Choking Hazard! This book should not be left anywhere that livestock such as cattle, goats, or horses might have access to it."
https://equinewellnessmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/dreamstime_m_1463165.jpg
That poor horse! It must have been the hard cover edition that he got stuck in his throat!
DeleteLooks like some middle of the week silliness is setting in on this blog. In an effort to return it to a more serious tone here's something new that some may find of interest.
ReplyDeleteA few days ago I got an email from Ken B and he included a link in it to a photo he got from someone else. That other person believes that the image in the photo actually contains the secret of Bessler's wheels in some way. Ken does not believe that (of course not, he's already convinced he's found it!) and he sent the link to me for my opinion. The problem is I have no opinion on it because I don't read German and I've never seen the image before. The file name says it's a wager of some sort for or from Bessler. Here's a link to the photo and maybe someone here can shed some light on what it is?
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/p403/ken1947/Public%20Wager%20for%20Bessler_zpshonrltty.jpg
Henry L.
It’s an old wager of a thousand thalers to try and get Bessler to demonstrate his wheel. I think it was published by Wagner or Gartner. Nothing of interest in it.
DeleteJC
I think it's an announcement of an even money wager of 1,000 thalers that Christian Wagner had published in the Hamburg Gazette, No. 20 in 1716 (assuming the gazette came out weekly it would have appeared about the third week of May). He bet Bessler that amount that his wheel could not run for four weeks while its axle produced a constant force of 70 pounds. If his wheel could not do that then Bessler had to pay Wagner 1,000 thalers. It was a "put up or shut up" kind of wager and Wagner really did not expect Bessler to take it. It was really intended to embarrass Bessler if he ignored it. Bessler did not take the wager because he knew his wheel could not perform as demanded. The printed image quality is similar to that of the drawings in MT and shows images that the public would have associated with Bessler's Merseburg wheel such as a pulley, pendulum, etc. The hour glass indicates that the wager involves a duration test and the large spheres might have represented heavy loads that the wheel would have to somehow make roll up an inclined plane as part of the wager. There's no secrets of Bessler's wheels in this announcement because Bessler did not make it. Wagner did not put his name on the announcement which is a little surprising considering the various signed pamphlets he was writing at the time to debunk Bessler's wheels.
DeleteNice illustration from the early 18th century. Thanks for the link.
DeleteLooks like Wagner was confident that Bessler's Merseburg wheel wouldn't be able to continuously lift a 70 pound load using just its axle and I agree. Assuming that it could, however, I'm wondering how one would demonstrate that. You'd have to have some sort of alternating clutch system set up where the wheel would lift a 70 pound load up to a certain height, then the axle would immediately be switched over to lifting a second 70 pound load to the same height while the first load returned to the ground again. Then after the second load reached that same height, the axle would be switched back to lifting the first load again to that same height while the second load returned to the ground. The wheel would have to be able to do that continuously for 4 weeks without any slowing. Just coming up with such an alternating clutch system, preferably automatic, would be a real headache. But, no doubt, Bessler would have figured it all out in time to win the wager. Maybe that's what the two equal weights hanging over the pulley in the drawing represent?
paul r.
Wouldn't the stamps have worked for a load, Maybe not exactly continuous but close enough, if they averaged 70 pounds. Sam Peppiatt
DeleteHenry L. Reff. 18-Feb.-22:38 I suggest that for lifting a weight with a rope; the axle would have been used like a capstan. You only have to wrap one turn, two at the most, around the axle. By putting some minimal tension on the rope it will pull the weight right up. To stop it you merely slack the rope enough for it slip. Sam Peppiatt
DeleteAnother thing that I would like to point out. You claimed the pulley was reduced in size 5 times. However, the SIZE the pulley, if you are talking about a shiv, for a rope to run through, isn't going to make a difference. Which means your calculations are off by 5 times. Sam Peppiatt
Delete@Sam
DeleteYes, using a stamping machine similar to that in DT's "Second Figure" of the Kassal wheel would work. As you say, just use 70 pound stamps which could be wooden pieces with heavy metal weights attached to their tops. There would be eight of them, four on the front end of the axle and four on the back end. They would be arranged so that during every 45 degrees of axle rotation a metal pin in the axle would raise only ONE of them up and then, as it dropped, the next in line would be raised and so on until all eight had been raised and dropped during each axle rotation. To keep the noise under control, their bottom ends would land on cloth pads to deaden the impact sounds. The arrangement would not require the wheel to output energy as continuously as a pulley system would, but it could be set up fairly quickly and probably would have satisfied Wagner. This approach could be made even smoother if one had the axle lift and drop 16 of the 70 pound stamps during each axle rotation with one being lifted and dropped every 22.5 degrees of axle rotation. Bessler could have put eight stamps on the front end of the axle and eight on the back end.
I'm the one who determined in the last blog that the maximum weight that could be lifted directly by the axle of the Merseburg wheel was only 14 pounds. That's because its axle could only constantly lift a 70 pound load when a SET of pulleys that increased the lifting force by at least 5 times was used. Without that pulley system and connecting a load directly to the axle, only 1/5th as much lifting force was available and 70 pounds / 5 = 14 pounds. That was the lifting force on the SURFACE of the axle which was 3 inches away from the center of the axle. (That means the maximum torque of the axle was 0.25 foot x 14 pounds = 3.5 foot pounds.) Because of that, there is no way that the Merseburg wheel's axle could ever lift those hypothetical 70 pound stamps mentioned above. At best it could only continuously and sequentially lift and drop stamps weighing 14 pounds each. Bessler knew that and so did Wagner. That is why Bessler had to remain silent as that wager was published in the Hamburg Gazette. He really had no choice and had no intention of throwing away his 1,000 thalers accepting a wager he knew he could not win. There was much confusion in the minds of the public at the time about exactly how much weight the Merseburg wheel could lift, how it was lifted, and for how long it could be lifted. There is STILL much confusion about it and that's by modern students of Bessler reading the best translations they can find of his books which, currently, are only the ones John obtained. I look forward to the eventual reproductions of Bessler's wheels being made so we can repeat the various load lifting tests with them and find out exactly what their performance capabilities were. I suspect that when that is done some will be disappointed by the results.
paul r.
Sam. This what the Third Testimonial in DT says (signed by all witnesses) about the pulleys arrangement.
ReplyDelete"It also retained this same speed and regularity of rotation when it was used to lift a chest containing 6 heavy wall-bricks (the total
weight being about 70 lbs). The apparatus used was an arrangement of pulleys; the rope went from the first, nearest the machine, across at an angle to the window 8 ells distant, and then descended perpendicularly via another a distance of several fathoms down to the courtyard where the chest was sited. The chest was then several times lifted by the Wheel, through this arrangement, up to the roof without any difficulty."
Rope around axle, down to ground anchored pulley, up to window pulley, down to box of bricks.
The same is said again in GB Pg 61.
Additionally.
"For if one considers the above-mentioned sizes and proportions of the three machines constructed by Monsieur Orffyreus (at Gera, Draschwitz
and Mersburg respectively), we can see that the first could only lift a
few pounds, the second 40 or so, but the third could lift between 70
and 80 lbs.
What is more, the method by which this is achieved is very straightforward, consisting of stout pulleys." GB pg 62
Very straightforward, stout pulleys.
"N.22. Notice the weight of 70 pounds or the chest with six bricks, raised vertically at least 8 ells, over the two pulleys, up to the roof of the house; a very heavy pull several fathoms high, but because of the unusual situation which prevented even more, with the same moderate running of the wheel, such lifting or dragging upwards had to suffice."
Two pulleys.
These were only braking tests and they don't truly measure the constant torque that a wheel could produce. They only indicate how much angular momentum was built up in a wheel prior to a lift. That lift had to be done by quickly attaching the looped end of a load's rope to a metal pin on the rotating axle when the wheel was running at full speed. If you tried lifting the same load by attaching the rope to the pin on the axle just as the wheel started up, then the wheel would just remain stationary because the weight of the load would act like a brake on it.
DeleteYes paul r. two pulleys, but two pulleys in line, with a SINGLE strand of rope. That means NO mechanical advantage. You must be thinking of a block and tackle. There is confusion all right. I suspect that Wolff meant that the AXLE was quite small which it was. Being only 6 inches in diameter.
DeleteA brake test. No way!! You are wrong. I don't believe that for one minute.
DeleteThat's just a lousy way to crap on it! Sam Peeeppiatt
@02:02 wrote: "Yes paul r. two pulleys, but two pulleys in line, with a SINGLE strand of rope. That means NO mechanical advantage. You must be thinking of a block and tackle."
DeleteI'm not paul r. but he is basing his estimate of the direct lifting force of the Merseburg wheel's axle that was done using some sort of block and tackle pulley system. The use of that was the only way that the wheel could, as it just started to turn, lift the 70 lb. weight and the lifting was much slower than it was when the wheel was running at 40 to 50 rpms and, as you correctly say, a rope from the weight that passed through two pulleys was suddenly attached to the wheel's rapidly turning axle. But, in that second case, which is a braking test even though no friction is being applied to the axle or drum, the energy of the wheel would be completely used up lifting the weight to a certain height. At that time the weight stopped rising and the wheel stopped turning. I agree that there would be no mechanical advantage by just passing a single rope through two fixed pulleys. To get the mechanical advantage you have to have at least one pulley physically attached to the load in some way. That's not the way the two pulleys in the DT drawing of the Merseburg wheel worked.
You guys are genesis's; but I don't think you know spit about machinery!! Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteTheir mechanical knowledge seems adequate. And I bet they know how to spell "geniuses"!
DeleteFuck you!! Sam Peppiatt
DeleteStick with it Sam. You'll note that Ken, Henry L. and paul r. do not quote where the 5 reduction came from.
DeleteHere's part of the Merseburg Testimonial relating to the lifting test and the pulleys. As mentioned previously by someone the DT Copper Engravings do not show block and tackles. Accelerated up to speed in about one revolution.
Examination at Merseberg
(October 31, 1715)
Plagued by continuing rumors and speculation of fraud, Bessler approached Moritz-Wilhelm, the Duke of Zeitz, with a request to sponsor the second official test of his machine. In particular, Bessler wanted to address allegations that the machine was driven through a hidden mechanism in the bearings. To invalidate the accusations, the test was specifically to include a translocation of the wheel from one set of supports to another. The certificate states:
The inventor first put in motion his six ells (~11 feet) in diameter and one foot thick machine which was still resting on the same wooden support upon which it had previously been mounted. It was stopped and restarted, turned left and right as many times as was requested by the commissaries or the spectators. The machine was started by a very light push with just two fingers and accelerated as one of the weights, hidden inside, began to fall. Gradually, within about one revolution, the machine acquired a powerful and even rotation, which continued until it was forcefully brought to a stop again; the machine preserved the same rapid motion when lifting a box filled with six whole bricks weighing together about 70 pounds. The weight was lifted by means of a rope conducted through a window by means of a pulley. The box was lifted as many times as was requested.
Furthermore the inventor, Orffyreus, in the presence of all, lifted the machine described above from its original wooden support. The timber posts were carefully examined from both top and bottom, as well as in the middle, particularly where a small cut was noticed. The same careful examination was devoted to the trunnions, the shaft, and to the bearings. During the inspection, not the slightest indication of imposture or deceit was found, rather everything was found to be right, complete, and without fault.
As further proof of its internal or inherent motive power, the machine was translocated to another support in such a way that the trunnions on both sides of the axle were laid uncovered in the open sockets. The whole assembly could see over and under, and both sides of the machine; and all present were invited to inspect the bearings, but no holes were found. All present examined them with their eyes, but no sign of fraud was seen. It was possible to translocate the machine and turn it left and right as many times as was asked by the respectable Commission. The machine regained its strong, fast, even rotation each time. The movement was accompanied by quite a loud noise that lasted until the machine was brought to a forced stop. Thus nothing suspicious happened.
Finally, it should be noted that right at the start, before the machine was subject to any testing, all rooms above, below, and on either side were examined by the Commission. It was also verified that the stamps were not hollow, and no indication of any mechanism moved by a cord was found.
All that has been written above is the truth, and has been acknowledged by signatures in our own hand without any reservations... signed at Merseberg, 31st October, year 1715.
The certificate was signed by 12 prominent dignitaries, chosen for their intellectual qualifications and status within the community.
Thank you anon 05.45, you saved me from having to quote from my book. The truth is all there in the certificate. I don’t know what paul r, and Henry L’s intentions but given their extreme similarity to Ken B’s style of writing at length and patronising tone, I suspect they are one and the same.
DeleteSpeculating on their determination to talk down the potential power inherent in a fully developed Bessler wheel, I suggest that they/he are/is trying to validate his ridiculous assertion that imbalance was induced in Bessler’s wheel by minuscule losses in mass.
JC
Part one:
DeleteOnce again I am stating that I am NOT Ken B. All I did was impartially read his book and continue to recommend it because I think it would greatly help those chasing Bessler's wheels finally make some real progress. I don't give endorsements easily. If I do endorse something it's with a very good reason.
You guys are making much of the Merseburg wheel examination on October 31, 1715 but you have to keep in mind it was the SECOND official test of the wheel. Let's take a look one of the results of that second test:
"Gradually, within about one revolution, the machine acquired a powerful and even rotation, which continued until it was forcefully brought to a stop again..."
Did anyone time how long that "one revolution" took? No. All we learn is that it was "gradual". Someone in the last blog actually made a wm2d model of the Merseburg wheel that showed it needed over half a minute for its first rotation to be completed. Not the 1.5 seconds that the "high power wheel" believers push on everyone.
You are all also ignoring an interesting little letter that was written by Christian Wolff to Gottfried Leibniz and was dated December 19, 1715 or about seven weeks after the second Merseburg wheel test. It apparently describes a test either done on the Merseburg wheel during the second official test or during the earlier first test. In the letter Wolff says:
“It [the Merseburg wheel] can lift a weight of sixty pounds, but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow.”
WHY are you all conveniently ignoring THAT letter?! Maybe it's because it clearly indicates that the Merseburg wheel did not have sufficient torque to be able to lift a 60 pounds weight off of the floor if its rope was directly attached to the axle and the wheel given a push to start it turning? Maybe it's because it clearly tells us that some sort of COMPOUND pulley system needed to be used to just get the weight off of the floor?
(continued)
Part two:
DeleteSo, before you all start dumping on Ken maybe you should get your facts right. He has and that's why he gets my endorsement. John refers to Ken's "energy from parts' mass loss theory" as a "ridiculous assertion that imbalance was included in Bessler's wheel by minuscule losses in mass." NO! Ken NEVER said that. The gradual and constant loss of mass inside of Bessler's wheels would have had an insignificant affect on the location of the CoG of a wheel's weights and levers. His theory only explains where the energy Bessler's wheels produced came from. So far I have not seen anyone else even try to discuss this matter in an intelligent way. When it comes time to discuss it everyone either ignores it or changes the subject. Ken is not afraid to take it on directly. All John does is repeat his worn out explanation about the energy somehow coming from gravity even though he's been repeatedly told that's impossible. When told that one of Bessler's wheels would also work just fine in a spinning centrifuge out in space where there is no natural gravity all he can do is ignore that or change the subject. That's because it doesn't fit in with his own "ridiculous assertion" of energy being produced by gravity.
If you guys are serious about actually duplicating one of Bessler's wheels then you need to take the subject as seriously as Ken does. Misinterpreting important clues in the Bessler literature and deciding which one's you like and will use won't lead to a working wheel. That approach has been used for three hundred years so far and led to nothing. Trust Ken's approach. He definitely has a new view of the subject that you need to learn about and not second hand from those who haven't actually read his complete book but right from the book itself with your own study. If you ignore my advice you will keep right on doing what you've done for years and getting the SAME results you have for years which are NO results! Right now I'm sure you all think you know as much about Bessler's wheels as there is to know. Lol! The sad reality is that you all just barely scratched the surface of the subject. Ken will take you right down to its core if you will give him a chance. I did and I'm glad I did.
Henry L.
You are right, who ever you are, I do have trouble with spelling, even 4 letter words----------------Sam Peppiatt
DeleteHenry L. You are deluding yourself. You cherry pick the things that you believe support your conclusions and ignore the stated facts.
DeleteIt has been suggested that the demonstration of the two bidirectional wheels were too fast. The lifting demonstrations needed to be slowed down, because they were over too quickly, hence the inclusion of the pulleys. Now you may or may not accept that, but you claim to have worked out how much power and speed were available, but you have so few established facts to work with that your results are complete guesswork, and unsafe.
Bessler said he could make his wheels move faster or slower with more or less power. Your totally ignore that statement. You have no idea how many mechanism were in the wheels. You don’t know how many weights there nor how large they were - unless of course you are relying on Ken’s imaginary clues?
JC
Hello ,
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask the supporters of Ken why they are not building the wheel?
They are so convinced that this is THE solution, we wonder why he is not building it ?!
I will tell you my feeling on this subject: The author of the simulation does not want to build it himself, citing various futile reasons (fatigue, going on to something else...).However, such an invention would revolutionize this world, even if the low output power (which is not proven).
What bothers me the most is people's insistence on talking about this simulation (and especially his book) in someone else's blog. If this simulation could really work, there would be no need for advertising, book sales. . .
Bessler's wheel spins for 54 days at a speed of 26rpm. A small calculation shows that a single rope would have worked more than 2 million times (26 X 60 X 24 X 54 = 2,021,760). This makes more than 64 million movements in all !! I doubt that an 18th century rope will hold up. It has been suggested that it may be very resistant animal tendons. OK ... but what do you do with the stretch? The settings are so precise (thousands of simulations to get there), that a stretch would disrupt the wheel.
And there is also another important element: according to this same simulation, an elastic is needed. The green rope remains taut despite several distances ?! So find an elastic in the 18th century that can work 16 million times. . . I have doubts .
There would be many other things to say but I think that we are on the same ship and that we are there to make things happen.
The best if you want to advance in this research, it is to get the books of John and especially to listen to him.
The solution is more "visual" than we think.
Proposing a solution that no one wants to build does not advance the solution of the puzzle. On the contrary, it can disperse anyone who could have found the right solution.
Sorry to have intervened John, but it becomes annoying to always see the same convinced of a project and not wanting to embark on construction. A simulation as such will not solve the energy and climate problems. This is why it is better to directly build a prototype.
No need to apologise. I have just about had enough of the Henry L, Paul R, and Ken B. Everyone know their claims to have solved Bessler’s clues is complete nonsense. I can’t wait to show you my own work on the clues so I can prove to you all that Ken’s giant white elephant is just that “ a white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. In modern usage, it is an object, building project, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered expensive but without use or value. Wikipedia”
DeleteJC
I am considering deleting all posts from Henry L, Paul R, and anyone who I can tell is actually Ken B. They all suffer from logorrhoea, they treat the readers in a patronising and condescending manner. They affect an apparently helpful tone in their writing which betrays a feeling of superiority. But they are not superior, they are so wrong.
DeleteJC
"Everyone know their claims to have solved Bessler’s clues is complete nonsense."
DeleteExactly how does "everyone" know that? Because YOU say so? Ken at least has found a solution and it looks very interesting and promising. He even backed it up with a huge published volume giving instructions to build all of Bessler's wheels and the locations of the clues Bessler left in the DT portraits that tell how to build his wheels. Where is YOUR solution? You don't even have a working sim and only keep telling us you will "reveal all"...someday. By the time that happens, others will already be making working reproductions of Bessler's wheels based on what Ken found in the DT portrait clues!
Looks like the field of "Besslerology" is being split up into two distinct factions in this blog. The "energy from gravity / high power wheel" faction promoted by John Collins and the "energy from wheel parts mass / low energy wheel" faction promoted by Ken Behrendt and those who believe in it. I assume that this is the faction that is promoted in Ken's book which I have not read.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we'll know for sure which faction is correct until and unless working physical replicas of Bessler's wheels start to appear and who knows how long that will take.
I can only add something which might tend to support Ken's faction. I vaguely recall reading a translation of a letter from Gottfried Leibniz to someone in which he mentions his personal testing of the Merseburg wheel which was done before that official test in October of 1715. Apparently Bessler and Leibniz became buddies because Bessler was hoping he would help him sell the wheel. But in this letter Leibniz complains that the wheel "wasn't able to do much" or something like that. In other words, Leibniz found it to be a "weak" wheel. If that wheel weighed 550 pounds and could zoom up to 40 rpm's within a minute of being started would Leibniz have written something like that? Seems unlikely to me. If I saw something like that I would be very impressed by it.
I found out that Ken uploaded a video last year to his youtube channel showing how the two pendulums were attached to the 12 foot diameter Merseburg wheel to slow it down. To the right of that wheel he shows how fast the Merseburg wheel was turning without the pendulums attached when it was moving at 40 rpm's. The speed is amazing. If something that size and weight actually went from 0 to 40 rpm's in only one minute would you say you thought it "wasn't able to do much"? Here's a link to that video. Make up your minds if you would call it a "weak" wheel as Leibniz did in that letter he wrote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNEPcYlDENM
Firstly if there are two factions as you claim, I would say that Ken’s faction is solely represented by yourself and your proxies , Ken.
DeleteAs for your casual but inaccurate reference to Leibniz, it is completely wrong and you could read all of Leibniz’s letter if you bothered to read my book about Bessler. He never suggested Bessler’s wheel was unable to do much!
You are like Ken in that you add inaccurate and faulty information, some of which could be kindly described as poetic license.
JC
I hadn't seen his Merseburg wheel pendulums video before. It's well made and the pendulums look perfectly timed. I've never seen one where the two pendulums are shown at once like in this one. I recall he had a pendulum video years ago that was a real mess when he uploaded it to youtube. His skills have improved a lot since then.
DeleteAlso, I was a bit stunned by how really fast the Merseburg wheel without the pendulums was moving at 40 rpms. Still Leibniz wasn't that impressed by it based on his testing. I wonder if that test using the overhead pulleys was done for Leibniz? Being a famous scientist at the time I'm sure he would have thought of something like that.
I agree that what really counts with any of Bessler's wheels would have been its starting torque. Maybe also how steady the torque remained with increasing speed. I think that's what a factory owner would have been interested in because it would let him know how much work a wheel could do in an hour and how much profit he would be making off of its operation. 100,000 thalers was a lot of money to have to pay for something without having all of those questions answered.
Strong, powerful, weak, these are subjective adjectives. Objective information is what is required. Ken's hypothesis is that the Merseburg wheel took 12 minutes to reach 40 rpm because it had low power and torque. That describes his sim for sure. He says the brick lift tests were geared down by pulley reduction tho the testimonials and DT drawings don't say or show that. Tho Wolffe mentions something else. He says the wheels slowed down noticeably during the "brake' test, which no witness noted, and in fact said the rpm was not diminished. And because other subjective adjectives were used in the testimonials like "soon" he chooses this as supporting evidence of his 12 minute run up time for his sim. He completely ignores that the Testimonial says it was up to speed in about one turn i.e acquired "a powerful and even rotation". Other witness statements including other wheels said they were up to speed in 2 or 3 turns. There is no credibility in arguing that any wheel which took 12 minutes to reach 40 rpm in perhaps 1 and 3 turns can be described as Ken's race horse called "Soon". Only in Ken's imagination.
ReplyDeleteI could go on and on but it's all been said.
-f
Assuming Ken's sim is robust (I don't think so, but he has not made it available for inspection) then it uses Ken's continuous overbalancing method. I don't believe it to be Bessler's continuous overbalancing method because Ken's sim performance is far removed from Bessler's. IMO.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous20 February 2020 at 15:44 makes very good points about physical robustness.
-f
Here's what Wolffe had to say in 2 of 4 letters.
ReplyDelete"Over a period of one minute, fifty revolutions were observed" 1715- Draschwitz
"At the moment it can lift a weight of sixty pounds, but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow." 1715 - Merseburg
'...A perpetual motion has been built by Orffyreus, a man skilled in the art of Medicine, from which he derives a living; and in Chemistry and Mechanics in which he is versatile... the perpetual motion which our Orffyreus built, has been seen by thousands of people, including experienced mathematicians and mechanics and they were all full of admiration. The mechanism, for which the inventor expects a sum of money, is carefully hidden, and is said to be simple. The diameter does not exceed five Leipzig ells (9.3 feet) nor does it exceed six inches in thickness. Over a period of one minute, fifty revolutions were observed and the wheel rotated whilst freely suspended with no apparent external source of power. It can provide impulse to remote mechanisms and easily lift weights of sixty to seventy pounds to a considerable height, in a repetitive, equable and continuous movement. This noble invention has been displayed to the public by the inventor in the village of Draschwitz, not far from the town of Zeitz; but he is considering moving to a new location.' - Acta Eruditorum, Christian Wolff, 1715
'When Orffyreus exhibited the extraordinary machine which he had built, to refute the malicious rumours being spread that it is fraudulent, I was deliberately present. The mechanic, Gartner, in particular, who is so famous for his many celebrated mechanical inventions, has distributed in public a copper-engraving on which is a slanderous picture showing how Orffyreus' machine was moved by means of a cord from an adjoining room. We have demonstrated that in reality Orffyreus' wheel is far removed from any such deception. The investigation was conducted in the presence of representatives from the Court of the Duke and other guests. When the machine was ready to rotate, all adjacent rooms were opened and the bearings were completely uncovered. To prevent anyone accidentally seeing the internal structure of the machine, he covered it. Whilst he did this, he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights. Several such weights, wrapped in his handkerchief, he let us weigh in our hands to estimate their weight. They were judged to be about four pounds each, and their shape was definitely cylindrical.
I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these through a slit. They are slightly elongated. When he put the wheel onto another support and reinstalled the weights in their previous positions, he pushed down on an iron spring that gave a loud noise as it expanded upwards. I therefore presume that there is no doubt that the wheel is moved by an internal source of power, but we cannot necessarily assume that it is perpetual. Furthermore, the machine may be of little value to the public unless it can be improved. At the moment it can lift a weight of sixty pounds, but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow. The diameter of the wheel is about twelve feet, and as well, the bearing was quite thin, about one quarter of an inch and only a sixth of its length was subject to friction.' - Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715
-f
How does a smaller pulley make it lift slower? Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteSam. John Collins 20 February 2020 at 15:54 said ..
ReplyDeleteIt has been suggested that the demonstration of the two bidirectional wheels were too fast (n.b Merseburg was the first). The lifting demonstrations needed to be slowed down, because they were over too quickly, hence the inclusion of the pulleys.
Wolff is the only commentator that mentions a 4 to 1 reduction (block and tackle presumably). The Testimonials do not mention it other than it was straight forward two pulleys, one to the floor and one out the window, as the DT drawings also show.
John hasn't given the information source that backs up what Wolff purportedly wrote about Merseburg pulley reduction. It might be a translation inconsistency since no one else thought to mention it.
Thanks for the info. But the part that makes no sense, is the SIZE of the pulley. The size of it, wouldn't make any difference, bigger or smaller. Anyway, there has to be a mix up there some where. Sam
ReplyDeleteI decided to revisit that wm2d sim that I made for the 550 pound Merseburg wheel last blog and see what average torque it would have needed in order to reach a final constant speed of 40 rpms in only a single minute after start up with nothing attached to its axle.
ReplyDeleteThe sim indicates that an average torque of 35 foot pounds is needed. If we assume that the torque at the final constant speed of the wheel was nearly zero foot pounds, then to get an average value of 35 foot pounds during the one minute acceleration, the start up torque would have been 70 foot pounds ( since average value of 35 ft-lb = [0 ft-lb + 70 ft-lb] / 2 ).
With that kind of start up torque, a rope around the 3 inch or 0.25 foot radius axle would be able to directly and slowly lift 280 pounds! If that was the case, then no five fold increase in lifting force requiring some sort of overhead compound pulley system would have been required to slowly lift a mere 60 pound load as was mentioned being done in Christian Wolff's letter. With that kind of power from the Merseburg wheel, Bessler would not have had to look around for buyers. He would have had them crowding into his home willing to bid on the wheel. He could have started the bidding at 100,000 thalers!
Based on this I find myself in the low energy wheel faction at this time.
paul r.
ps I'm also not ken or one of his alleged proxies and I haven't read his book. But I do plan on doing so.
I see now; you are trying to degrade the power of Bessler's wheel, so that it will be more inline with what ever power Ken's wheel might have. I just think, you are going about it in the wrong way------------Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteI'm also in the low energy output faction, but not nearly as low torque as KB.
ReplyDeleteIt's worth pointing out again that ONLY KB thinks that in the Merseburg wheel (two-directional from a stationary position) lift tests the wheel went down to zero rpm at max lift height for 70 lbs load. All testimony says its rpm remained the same with or without a load. Additionally Bessler's earlier one-directional wheels started from a standing start on release. IOW's there was a constant torque in any position. And then they were at full rpm in 1-3 turns.
"All testimony says its rpm remained the same with or without a load."
DeleteAt a speed of 40 rpms and an axle radius of 3 inches or 0.25 feet, the Merseburg wheel, assuming no change in its speed during a lift, would have raised the load of bricks through the estimated vertical distance of 16 feet in about 15.28 SECONDS! Are we supposed to believe that anybody was actually able to make an accurate measurement of the wheel's speed as the load rose in only 15.28 seconds and then manually stopped the 12 foot 550 pound wheel just before the load hit the pulley? I don't think that's possible. Bessler must have played around with the weight of the load his wheel was lifting so it would come to a stop just before the load hit the pulley. Put me in the low energy wheel camp with ken!
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, there is absolutely no data suggesting that any of Bessler’s wheels had a weight of 550 pounds. This is just more of Ken B’s absurd manipulation of clues which only he can find and interpret and which bare no relationship to the real clues.
DeleteAnd I would point out that your latest argument supports the suggestion made earlier that the pulleys were included in the Merseburg wheel to deliberately slow it down. This also explains why the Kassel wheel was slower but didn’t need pulleys.
JC
@John Collins
DeleteIf you disagree with the estimate of the Merseburg wheel having a mass of 550 pounds, then what is YOUR estimate of its mass? Even if it was + or - 100 pounds from the 550 pound figure, that wouldn't change the lift time estimated by anon 05:38 that much.
The pulleys on the Merseburg wheel did not slow that wheel down. They actually allowed it to run faster by decreasing the retarding torque applied to the axle by an attached load. Bessler admits this when he wrote in AP (page 340):
"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."
Those "cross-bars" refer to the metal pins used to hold extra pulleys in a compound pulley frame. The more pulleys, the more lifting force on the load and the LESS retarding torque applied to a wheel's axle which then allowed the wheel's overbalanced torque to make it turn faster. Here's a gif of a compound pulley system with two frames and six "cross bars" holding six pulleys. It would have reduced the retarding torque on the axle of one of Bessler's wheels from a load it was lifting to 1/6 of what it would be if the load was attached directly to the axle without the pulley system being used and allowed the wheel to run much FASTER and NOT slower:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/ZY_hxvbSYpnl_gTMMOEbfh_s0MEE0EIkltNgvXx3jtqP6hn2IiWBhmraX5czGCk4CtTQ5ZzJgJIbpv3IfTwRWrXOK3iFmvkex7EC
It's a shame the wheel didn't run on BS--------Sam Peppiatt
DeleteAnon 12.17, your link is inaccessible. But you are so wrong about the meaning of the crossbars that your argument is nullified. You are still making statements as if they were facts and they are nothing more than speculation. Stick to the facts please.
DeleteJC
That blocked link of his showed something like this:
Deletehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Four_pulleys.svg/675px-Four_pulleys.svg.png
it was like the one on the right side only it had three pulleys in the top frame and three in the bottom frame for a total of six pulleys. It was an animation that showed when a force of 25N was applied to the rope the six pulleys allowed it to apply a 150N lifting force to a weight hanging below the pulleys. The rope was pulled out of the pulley system six times faster than a weight was lifted by the pulley system.
I think his interpretation of the cross bars being the axle pivots for the pulleys makes much sense. Those pivots cross from one side of a pulley frame to the other and they are bar shaped or short cylinders. Most importantly they are outside of the drum and not inside. Misinterpreting the meaning of the word can falsely lead one to think there were some sort of crosses inside of the drum. False leads based on mistranslations / interpretations only result in wasted time and effort. "Sticking to the facts" is good advice. Just make sure your "facts" are correct!
Henry L.
You wrote, ‘ I think his interpretation of the cross bars being the axle pivots for the pulleys makes much sense.’. You may think that but it doesn’t make it a fact, and you are so focussed on yours or Ken’s interpretation that you don’t consider any other.
DeleteJC
The mass of the Merseburg wheel is not relevant to how fast it would lift the load of bricks through the 16 feet. Anon 05:38's calculated time of 15.28 seconds, which I checked and found to be accurate, would be the same for a wheel of any mass so long as its rotation speed was a constant 40 rpm's.
ReplyDeletepaul r.
paul r. , I think you are right. That's pretty much what it did, a steady continuous lift. Not, a jerk test! Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteRAF Thanks John, Am sending drawings in jpg also. Might be a help to you.
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to think that the Merseburg was so fast and so power full, that it was lifting the load of bricks in about 3.5 seconds. That's why they HAD to reduce the size of the axle by more than 4 times! To a more manageable time, of 15 seconds. Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeletePS I meant to say Merseburg wheel-------Sam
ReplyDeleteSo the Merseburg wheel was lifting a load of 70 lbs at the rate of approximately 1 foot per second. So 16 feet vertically in approx 16 seconds, 8 feet in 8 seconds etc. Not particularly fast or particularly slow either.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know how the load was picked up or slowed down to be brought down again at the top of the lift height. What it didn't do was crash into the top pulley or anything as destructive as that. That would have been recorded and idiotic. This has been discussed many times in the past and the most likely conclusion was that as Sam said earlier the rope went around the axle (perhaps a couple of turns) like a capstan you see on ferries retrieving their shore ropes. When someone pulled on the loose end of the rope it created a higher friction at the axle and the rope could not slip. Up went the load. Near top of lift the person controlling the lift reduced the back pull and slippage occurred allowing him to control the load to a stop and then let it down again in a slow controlled manner. Then he'd repeat the process.
Here Here, if only I could write, (and spell), like you do------------Sam
DeleteThe axle of the Merseburg wheel was located 7 feet off of the floor of its room and using it like a capstan is not what's shown in Bessler's drawings of the wheel. The axle did have a small metal piece projecting from one of its ends. When it was time to lift the box of bricks Bessler would have just reached up and caught the metal piece with a loop tied into the end of the rope from the load. As the rope wound around the axle it would get suddenly tight and pull that end of the axle down. That's why the pulley was bolted to the floor right under the axle. That directed the sudden jerking force on the axle downward and not sideways which might have yanked the axle's end pivot right off of its brass bearing plate.
DeleteThe load that was lifted was carefully planned so that the wheel would loose its energy and come to a stop just before the load hit the pulley outside of the window which only took about 15 seconds. Without touching the drum the load would then have begun descending as the drum reversed its direction of rotation and when it hit the ground again Bessler could have quickly pulled the loop at the end of the rope off of the metal piece on the axle to disconnect the load from the axle.
Henry L.
HL said "The axle did have a small metal piece projecting from one of its ends".
DeleteThe small piece of metal projecting from the ends can be seen in the Merseburg drawings. Beside it is the rope wound 6 times around the axle and going thru single pulleys to the load.
HL said "Without touching the drum the load would then have begun descending as the drum reversed its direction of rotation".
Do you not think that the witnesses and testimonials would mention that the drum stopped and then reversed direction to lower the load?
That's not what they said. They said it continued with the same rpm unloaded or loaded!
I know this doesn't fit with Ken's theory but we can't put words in the mouths of the witnesses now can we.
What Henry L. says is plausible. If the wheel stopped by itself just before the load hit the pulley and the wheel was not somehow locked into position, then the load would have immediately started to drop and the wheel rotate in the opposite direction. Don't forget that the Merseburg wheel was bidirectional. On page 68 of GB there is the second certificate by chief magistrate Johann Weise that says:
Delete“He then attached a rope to the axle - the other end being allowed to hang down out of the window. This far end was attached to a chest full of bricks - about 70 lb weight in all – and this load was raised and lowered several times by the machine. The most noteworthy detail regarding this particular experiment was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running “empty.”
But I disagree with Henry about the lift time being about 15 seconds. That time assumes that the speed of the wheel remained constant during the entire lift and that cannot be the case if the wheel came to a stop to prevent the load from hitting the pulley. To someone just watching the raising and lowering of the load of bricks and not carefully timing it with a watch having a second hand, the lift and drop times might have appeared the same but that was only an illusion. Also thinking the drum's speed remained the same would also have been an illusion.
The average speed during the lift of a uniformly slowing Merseburg wheel would only be half of 40 rpms or 20 rpms and that means it would have taken the wheel twice as long or about 30 seconds to lift the load up to near the pulley before the wheel stopped and then reversed direction and began lowering the load again. When starting up in the opposite direction, the extra torque on the axle due to the dropping load would have tended to speed up the Merseburg wheel as it turned in that direction. Maybe the load's trip back down to the ground would have been closer to 15 seconds. If it was 20 seconds and the lift was 30 seconds the times might have appeared the same to a casual observer not timing the motions using a watch with a second hand as would the speeds of the wheel in both directions.
I can just imagine Bessler monitoring the rope wrapping and unwrapping around his wheel's axle inside his home as the load of bricks outside his home went up and down repeatedly. The crowd watching it would have been amazed by such a sight. That was the whole idea, of course. Dazzle the crowd so they would go off and spread the news about Bessler's Merseburg wheel.
paul r.
Actually I'm a hopeless speller Sam - always have been and don't seem to get any better - same words over and over, they just don't quite look right - you'd think I'd have learned them by now. What I do is plug how I think the word is spelt into Google Search. Get the correct spelling and copy it to my post fwiw. Spelling has no 'corrollation' correlation to anything else and is not a measure of anything. Bad spelling just makes things harder to read and sometimes understand.
ReplyDeleteYes ,I have to write very slow to prevent the spell checker from catching on fire! Thanks for the kind words, Sam
ReplyDeleteKen B, Henry L, and Paul R, may I ask that you refrain from making statements as if they are facts when I at least know they are at best speculations and I’m not the only one. I can’t list all of your assumptions both speculative and imagined, there isn’t time or space here, but I look forward to shooting down almost all of your comments here in due course. I realise that you are simply trying to promote your book, and understand that but please find some other place to do it, because your are filling this space with false information based entirely on the basis that your book holds the key to Bessler’s wheel, when it doesn’t. It is so full of errors, false assumptions and imaginary facts that it is worse than Frank Edwards’ book about Bessler, but he at least had the excuse that he was a journalist and needed to spice up his stories adding imaginary facts to attract an audience, but what’s your excuse?
ReplyDeletePlease go away, I have resisted deleting comments so far but my patience is wearing thin.
JC
John Collins!!! How DARE you question any information, actually revelations, provided to us by "Ken the Great" and his various proxies. Don't you realize that he's recently descended from the "Realm of Total Bessler Awareness Where the Successful Mobilist Dwells" down to the "Realm of the Confused, Frustrated Mobilist Where NO Success is Possible..." and where the rest of us have, because of our total ignorance of practically everything, been forced to live? Yes, like Jesus he's returned to enlighten us all and share his advanced knowledge, given to him directly by Johann Bessler himself through the DT portrait clues, so that we too can achieve his exalted state of "Total Bessler Awareness" and become his equals. We should all drop down to our knees and give him praise and thanks for his consideration of us!
DeleteApparently, he has determined that the mass of the Merseburg wheel was exactly 550 pounds and that of the Kassal wheel exactly 1,100 pounds. That settles the matter once and for all. No need for any further analysis or discussion. Case closed! Ken the Great has spoken!
If you do decide to start deleting comments by him and his various proxies then, no doubt, you will be quickly accused of trying to suppress knowledge of his discoveries from being discussed on the internet. His fans will then take that as proof positive that he has indeed found the actual secret of Bessler's wheels and that you cannot control your own burning envy of that and desire to make it all go away! In fact, banishing anyone you consider to be Ken B or his proxy might actually increase his book sales! Perhaps he and his proxies are purposely trying to get your patience to wear thin so you will do exactly that! Ken B is capable of anything when it comes to promoting his version of Bessler's wheels! He's gone way beyond just being obsessed with the subject.
Anonymous and PROUD of it!
Ok .. lets deal with some apparent facts. We all know the numbered Merseburg drawings (2 variants). Here are the relevant numbering of the parts for further discussion if required.
DeleteDT Pg 139-140 (courtesy JC's books)
14. Iron screw on axle for fixing rope to.
15. Place at which rope winds on to axle.
16. Indicates total length of line or rope.
17. Pulley attached to floor, round which the rope passes.
18. Hole in board through which rope passes.
19. The rope passes through the window.
20. Pulley outside window, round which the rope passes.
21. Small wooden beam on which the pulley turns.
22. The chest, full of stones, which the wheel raises.
23. Wooden lever to bring machine to rest.
n.b. Translations might vary according to translator. Note the wooden handle lever to bring the machine to rest.
Things might indicate to me that there was a fixed length of rope that could wind up around the axle (side by side at same radius). This was affixed to the axle by the iron screw. The wooden lever handle 23 was used to impede the machine and could stop it. Ok, I can see this lifting a box of stones but there would need to be some slack in the rope to let it wind up one round of rope on the axle and be at operating rpm for the lift after one revolution. It would lift at the same rpm and be stopped at top of lift by the use of a man and the handles. I guess the iron screw is released perhaps and the rope allowed to unwind itself from the axle i.e. someone holding a length not indicated in the drawing to control it. The screw would be replaced when the load is safely at the bottom and the man releases the handle.
Anybody have any other ideas on how the numbering is supposed to be interpreted and the actions they denote that makes logical sense?
"The wooden lever handle 23 was used to impede the machine and could stop it."
DeleteThat's probably another mistranslation in the text. That wooden piece on the axle could not stop the rotating axle because it just rotated around with the axle. It's shape indicates that it served as a deflector for the incoming windings of rope. If the windings were allowed to approach the drum there was the danger of them somehow tearing the cloth off the side of the drum and exposing its internal mechanism which was something Bessler certainly did not want to risk. Part No. 23 was intended to deflect the rope back toward the other end of the axle and start another layer of windings on top of the first. However, that second layer of windings could never reach the end of the axle because by that time the load had almost reached the pulley and the Merseburg wheel would have slowed to a stop so no more rope would be added to the axle.
Nonsense. Take a look at the 'arm' in question. Granted it is in near the wheel as it needs to be. It's dimensions are what gives it away as a device to slow the machine and not a rope deflector. With a load the rope would always be taut and and not able to flay around. Therefore if it were a deflector shield it could have a much lesser radius and though not entirely necessary be circular. It's secondary purpose to act as a bookend for anything winding on the axle but not its primary purpose.
DeleteHere's the Merseburg wheel drawing with the itemized numbering.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.besslerwheel.com/images/Merseburg_wheel1.jpg
The German next to Item 23 is simple to translate, it says, ‘an arm of the machine with which to bring it to a standstill.’
ReplyDeleteJC
You really some one could grab that lever and stop a 500 pound wheel in a hart beat!!! Let's give that job to Ken---------------Sam Peppiatt
DeleteNo Sam, it’s a bit of a puzzle, and the wheel has a lock at the bottom to hold it still. I guess it means that you could use the lever to start the wheel instead of pushing on the edge, also you could turn it in either direction.
DeleteJC
Hi John, That's true. I see the drawings as more of an artist conception of it; rather then how it actually operated. Using the axle as a capstan is still the easiest way to start and stop the lifting of the bricks. Sam Peppiatt
DeleteYes I think he had to provide an interesting depiction of his wheel, and went for some interesting detail, not necessarily used in the original, at least not as shown..
DeleteJC
Exactly------Sam
DeleteJC gives the translation of part no. 23 as:
Delete"an arm of the machine with which to bring it to a standstill"
I think the misinterpretation everyone makes here is that they think the word "it" refers to "the machine" or the axle and its attached drum. If you substitute the words "rope windings" for the word "it" then the part description makes sense and agrees with what anon 09:50 said above.
"an arm of the machine with which to bring the rope windings to a standstill"
This translation tells you that the part was intended to prevent the accumulating rope windings from getting any closer to the drum.
That part is there for a reason and it can't be to stop the axle from rotating. One might have used it to slowly manually rotate the axle and drum when they were stationary by reaching overhead and grabbing onto the ends of the two pieces but that would have been awkward. The axle and drum could be much more easily rotated by just pushing on the rim of the drum.
I think Bessler put part no. 23 there because he had an earlier bad experience when it wasn't there and he made a test lift of the load outside his window using the Merseburg wheel. The windings wrapped right up to the drum and then made a pile up there that damaged the linen cloth near the axle. Maybe one of the entire sheets of linen on that side of drum came undone and started flapping about as the drum turned. It must have scared him enough to add those pieces. They were probably just attached to the wooden axle with small 90 degree metal brackets and screws. He could also have pressed them into slots cut in the axle but making any sort of deep cuts near the center of the axle would have weakened it. The last thing he needed would be for the axle to crack in half while he was trying to impress people with how reliable his wheels would be!
Literally the German says, ‘one arm for machine standstill to bring’.
DeleteThe Latin says, ‘wood pole loose in machine to stop’.
Can’t say better than that.
JC
I agree with the rope-stop explanation. Very good interpretation from anon 22-2-2020 22:06.
DeleteIt would make no sense trying to stop a wheel close to the axle. Besides, a man was lifted ( a bit) trying to stop the wheel. That would only happen if you grab the wheel by the edge.
You might reconsider John.
About the torque of the wheel. That cannot be much. Otherwise you would not be able to stop it by hand or prevent it from starting by a small lock. The mass of the wheel is important. That is where the energy is going. When loaded the wheel slows down. If you don’t overload it, it will keep running. Even with a small torque. The wheel has to start-up before you can load it.
DeleteSo true, Marinus. Bessler had to give the Merseburg wheel's drum a push to get it turning in one of its two possible directions and then waited for its speed to build up to the maximum 40 revs per minute. Then he must have snared the pin on its axle as it came whipping by with a noose at the end of the rope going down to the pulley on the floor. The rope would have quickly wound around the axle and gone tight. When that happened the rope began lifting the bricks outside of the wheel's room. There's no way to stop a wheel moving at that speed in only a second to keep the bricks from smashing into the pulley and destroying it. I think Paul R. got it right when he said the wheel would have smoothly slowed to a stop after about 30 seconds of lifting the bricks. I also agree that those wood pieces on the axle prevented the rope from piling up against the drum.
DeleteI agree Marinus, it doesn’t make sense to try to stop the wheel close to the axle, I simply translated the words relating to item numbered 23.
DeleteJC
If the wheel is driven by a constant recurring imbalance, there must be a constant pulsation, because otherwise it is not imaginable that the imbalance is restored again and again. However, a pulsation was not noticed or described by the witnesses. Was it a clever trick after all?
ReplyDeleteovaron
By the way, Ken's book is not recommended. Too much fantasy and half-truths make his work useless for serious seekers. His "clues" are hair-raising and just his imagination.
Thank you ovaron, for expressing your opinion of Ken’s book. I agree, it is unbelievable.
DeleteJC
ovaron. Any pulsating might not be noticeable because the wheel is also a flywheel which smooths out rotation.
Delete@ovaron
DeleteI think someone above had it right when he said that as the drum turns and tries to drop the CoG of the weights that CoG was automatically raised up by the shifting of the levers from microsecond to microsecond to keep the the drum's overbalance. That frequency is so high that it goes from being a pulsating overbalance to being a continuous one.
I actually made the effort to read all of Ken's book and have a very different opinion of it than you. Instead of a collection of dry names, dates, and places about Bessler's history he makes the Bessler story come alive and you feel like you are on the scene as different things happen in Bessler's life. He says in the introduction that he has filled in some of the gaps in that history with "reasonable speculation". I didn't read anything that could not have happened as he says it did. It's also very hard to dismiss the conclusions he's reached about the mechanics of Bessler's wheels and the many clues he found in the portraits and other places that it is based on. Also his book is not a first time effort by an amateur. It's his sixth book in about twenty years and well written, imo.
If I had listened to the "reviews" of others who either never actually read any of his book or just skimmed a few pages of it from a free Google preview or were just passing along hearsay from others who did the same then I probably wouldn't have bothered to read it for myself. That would have been a big mistake because when I did I found out that Ken's research is far in advance of what others offer. I think his approach actually represents the next generation in Bessler research and probably does give "the" solution to the mystery of Bessler's wheels. The only problem with his effort is that he only has a working sim at this time and no working physical wheel. But if he's right and I hope he is that may soon change.
Henry L.
Henry L., once again, if you are so convinced of Ken's words, then why don't you build his wheel?
DeleteYes, Ken give it up, go back to the drawing board, like every one else has to. You are a smart guy, figure out some thing that will work. Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteKen tells us that his sim has a sweet spot. A Goldilocks zone he found. Just the right internal elements lengths and tensions, K setting etc. And this took him years to find (from Bessler's clues) and experimentation. This sim has very little torque. From his video on You Tube the pin constraints etc wander across the background they are 'attached' to but he has an explanation for that even if it makes no sense to me. If the sim is not intentionally 'doctored' to have a surplus torque for demonstration purposes of how his wheel design 'should' work then it is plausible it was done unintentionally. The sweet spot shows that it is not robust to small variations which he warns us about. I'd suggest that sweet spot also means it only works at a certain small range of frames per second, iteration steps aka accuracy, and overlap error settings, which we know can introduce energy into a sim if mistreated. Every experienced user knows about this. Since he won't discuss detail or release it for inspection by others we have to draw our own conclusions to the probability of his sim being well made.
ReplyDeleteif you are so convinced of Ken's words, then why don't you build his wheel? If it s works , you'll be famous , probably rich and certainly
Deletewith a timeless recognition for the planet .
You have no pretext to give. For example: if you are not a handyman, then have someone else do it for you. If you need money for it, then mortgage your house because it will work anyway!
But i still have to warn you that the author himself does not want to build a real prototype.
Make it and don't talk about it all the time . Our planet is waiting for it , not for a book or a simulation .
Better still, forget about it!! Sam Peppiatt
DeleteI have studied Ken's youtube wheel video at 0.25 x normal speed and HD. Yes there is noticeable "orbiting" of the constraints during its rotation but I've seen that same thing in my own sims. It's an effect found in the newer versions of wm2d and not seen in earlier versions. I noticed that there is some very slight bouncing around of the wheel's offset CoG but it always stays on the descending side of the axle. If he was hoaxing that video by assisting it with some torque because it couldn't keep its CoG on the descending side by itself then why does the CoG stay on the descending side throughout the one rotation he shows? Could he have faked where the CoG is located? The more I look at his video the more I'm convinced it's genuine. Yes the torque of the wheel will be low but it's supposed to be Bessler's first 3 foot diameter prototype wheel that could barely keep itself moving. If what he shows is actually Bessler's wheel then making its diameter bigger and its weights heavier should greatly increase its torque.
Delete@Anon 02:57
DeleteI found that the bouncing motion of the CoG in his wm2d model is better viewed by playing its youtube video back at 2 x normal speed and HD. I found it interesting that the bouncing was really more of a short oscillation from left to right and back again that seems to be synchronized with the swinging motions of the 6 and 9 o'clock levers. These oscillations are always horizontal but I'm not sure what that means. I agree the model looks genuine. If he was going to fake it wouldn't he have put the CoG farther out onto the descending side of the wheel to make it look like it had more torque?
It's easy to fake the CoG visual if you intentionally want to. Just think how you might do it with a few masses, a circular slot background coordinate pinned, and some fake forces, all hidden from view. Positionally driven by the angular displacement of the main disk for instance, or straight gearing and fake forces. The CoG staying on the descending side with slight bouncing is a prima facie proof but not conclusive proof.
ReplyDeleteI can think of one way to make a fake CoG and put it into a model, but it's not an easy method. Much less easy if you want to also make it bounce around a little randomly like the one in his video does. I can't absolutely say his video is a hoax at this point. I look forward to seeing if anyone else ever duplicates it. I'd give it a try if I knew what the values for its parts were. You need his book for those values and I haven't decided yet if I'll get it. I probably will eventually though.
DeleteHis model is impressive because it certainly seems to fit all of the clues we all know about such as eight weights that would make impact sounds per rotation on the descending side, weights moving toward the center and then climbing away again on the ascending side, a connectedness principle, etc. It's even got stretched springs on the levers that could have yanked one of them out of Bessler hand and accounted for that loud bang that was heard during the testing of the Merseburg wheel as he was either removing or replacing its weights. I think there was also some sort of spring noise that was heard at that time.
All true but I've also seen very similar designs over the years that don't work. Perhaps not as complex. And it wasn't because the parameters and variables weren't explored rigorously enough to find the one sweet spot. It wasn't there to be found with those types of concepts. Even Kerry Waenga's concept had all those elements.
DeleteIt hasn't been peer reviewed which would dispel much of the doubts, or cause more. There are people here claiming to have reproduced the torque from his sims but I note they haven't said they rebuilt Ken's sims. They may well have just produced a pinned disk and gave it a small torque (fake force) to equate to Ken's sims alleged torque. Then said it ran down to zero rpm on the lift over 3 stories as Ken's did.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteSince everyone's concepts seem to be evolving what say you to the man who has an obviously evolved concept? Bessler's words come to mind: " I thought it might be possible, on mechanical principles, to devise a better machine, and shut myself up to study the matter. :: "In line 6 of section 13 of Part 1 I report on a matter that did not go as I'd intended. (...the vision of a roasting spit would not leave my mind...) But I kept on searching, and eventually found something better, which did not need winding up, and until someone can come up with something better, I've got the true Mobil."
All I'm really saying is the lights have come on, so to speak, for me at least. I respect you John. I am saying that I wish we were closer because I honestly feel that this particular concept,design, principle potentially fits the bill. The speculation phase is over. I wish I had someone(like you,lol) with a critical mind that I could share it with at this point and since you've put so much in I'd hate to see you go without some credit just in case this is what I think it is.
ReplyDelete