Tuesday, 4 August 2020

Update - More Clues Deciphered.

I guess I owe an update on my mission to finish my reconstruction of Bessler’s wheel and publish the result in September.

Frustratingly, I discovered the solution to Bessler’s wheel more than two years ago, but it was just the concept and not all of the detail. In fact I didn’t ‘discover‘ it,  I found it in Bessler’s clues.  Although I had managed to extract much of the design from his clues, that is where I got stuck. I thought I had identified all of the clues I needed and yet there were problems making some parts of the mechanism work in the way I had planned it, according to the concept I had found. I knew if I was right then Bessler must have provided useful hints for every problem encountered, by providing clues showing the correct solution, but it was a struggle to identify more clues and interpret them correctly, it was like pulling teeth! But slowly, bit by bit I found them and got to understand their meaning and eventually I knew I had the whole thing worked out and ready for assembly.

Under the best conditions the design calls for skills and equipment I no longer have, but I’m carrying on with my amateurish efforts and I’m hopeful that I’ll finish soon.  Even with the clues there are still  occasions where trial and error are necessary, and progress happens in fits and starts.  Some clues don’t become meaningful until the build has progressed to a certain point, and then realisation suddenly illuminates one’s mind.

According to the solution certain actions needed to take place but try as I might I was unable to make one movement in particular, act as I expected and it has taken me until this year to understand how it works. It works in a counter-intuitive way, but I had unconsciously applied assumptions to its action which turned out to be wrong and prevented my seeing it moving as required. My own thoughts or preconceptions had guided my expectations which blinded me to the truth and obstructed the desired result.  But I got there in the end.

One thing is certain, I would never have been able to conjure up this design myself, it is no wonder no one apart from Bessler has ever succeeded. Karl the Landgrave’s opinion that it was very simple is misleading; if you watch a mechanism working you can get an understanding of how it works,  but, although Karl clearly understood what he was seeing, he had never actually made something himself so may not have understood how difficult it would be to build. . Watching Bessler’s mechanisms in action would be fascinating (and will be I hope!) but to see and realise all the complex interactions that occur very quickly could take a lot longer than a few minutes of study. 

Finding and decoding all of Bessler’s clues requires patience and imagination, something I’m not so well equipped with at my age, and although I am sure I am right, in the end I might make a mistake, a simple error, which is why I’m so determined to get all of this work out into the public domain. You can be the judge. Of course I hope to have a working model to prove my work, but if it fails I’m sure there will be enough information for someone to succeed.

I know I’ve said this before, but anyone who thinks we’ll never know how Bessler’s wheel worked can think again, he left information about every aspect of his wheel. To us it looks obscure and ambiguous, but clearly Bessler was worried that someone might easily understand his clues if he made them any easier, so he placed a number of clues in various places and styles and then hid them under an invisibility cloak!

One more thing.  Many people have suggested that a sim would prove once and for all whether the design I’m working on would work, that may be so, I have little experience of them, but I think that a sim of my design would prove quite difficult to make.  I can’t remember seeing any sims with such complex actions. Perhaps a more sophisticated software or experienced simulator could manage it.

Still seeking donations for Amy’s crowdfunding page at
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-our-amy-to-walk-again

https://gf.me/u/ymprif

For news and videos of my granddaughter Amy who is suffering from CRPS, FND, PTSD and unable to walk and who’s left hand has suffered from fixed contracture you should take a look at her TikTok page. She has over 28,000 followers and climbing!

She is improving, particularly in her attitude to recovering from this nightmare disease.

NB Today, 24 August, just three weeks since I posted this blog, Amy now has over 50,000 followers, and 1.2 million likes!

                                               https://www.tiktok.com/@amyepohl



JC

81 comments:

  1. John,
    Let me be the first to comment. Welcome back. I've spent some time obsessed and very busy with this pursuit. As for now I have a final design animated in Blender and pretending (whether it is the thing or not) to have found it. Very curious if I'm correct as you are. I wish we could find some common ground. Besslerwheel website was supposed to serve that purpose but I am afraid that we either failed it or it has failed us (most likely the former). My final design is very simple so it fits the bill for Karl's statements. Surely Bessler thought we would find it by now. The very concept he described: a principle of excess weight... what does that mean in the simplest of thoughts? There were times when I thought it must mean basically the opposite of what it describes... some deficiency of weight, which, is logical in this case, abundance implies the opposite... yin and yang. Bessler implied that his machine was using less weight to raise more weight so by this virtue it could save... or build strength. So we must discover where Bessler's idea originated. Wher do you get the idea that you can have this type of advantage in a mechanical system?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The advantage of using less weight to raise more weight may not be as it seems cw. I found an alternative interpretation for the idea which, it seems to me at least, to have merit. But at this point it could mean what you have suggested, only time will tell, I hope!

      JC

      Delete
  2. Hello cw. My simplified build of M.T. 25 does work as Bessler outlines:a small shifter weight suddenly lifts a weight 4 times heavier (the kiiking movement). Visit Google to see bessler wheel quest.com. Is your design similar ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had a look and i must say no... my design is not similar to that. Just think how easily an impulse can be added to a pendulum...how easy is it to sustain a child in a swing. This is what my design is based on.

      Delete
    2. RADFORD, I've looked at your drawing a lot of times but can't figure it out. I really don't see any weights or levers. What baffles me is; how can a weight falling down from 6:00 pull up on the red string? Sam

      Delete
  3. a lever to lift 4 lb with one lb isn pretty straight forward.... and a block and tackle is pretty clear as well. It is the opposite action from a movement that always gets me in trouble

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sounds like you're getting nowhere fast. Anything too complicated will immediately be dismissed as not being Bessler's as I'm sure you know. If I were you, I would not spend another second screwing around with the bits and pieces of your wheel that you cannot get working smoothly together. Instead make a nice clear drawing of the design and contact that guy Wubbly on BW forum. He does excellent sims and has already shown one of Raj's stringy weight wheels to be another nonrunning delusion. He also did the same with that octagonal tumbling nonsense that Kunstler guy has been showing pictures of forever but never gets around to testing because he "knows" it will work so there's no real need to ever actually test it. If you've got a runner, Bessler's or another design, then Wubbly will be able to determine it. If not, then you can stop wasting your time chasing after delusional clues and obsessing over what they mean.

    jason

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Jason. Excellent advice, I will be doing as you suggest, but not until I’ve finished building this model to see if I can produce a working version.

      JC

      Delete
  5. I agree with Jason too.
    If you supply the principal of how the wheel works, be it by a physical runner or the details of how it works, which can be shown by a sim and then verified by a physical build, the credit will go to you all the same.
    Machining a few parts and putting them together is toy town technology, millions of people around the world are fully capable of doing it. What we need to know is what parts to make and how to put them together. If you can give us this information you will be the hero and you would receive all due credit for sharing this information.
    If your proposal doesn't work, but after a few modifications from other people it does become a runner, you will also receive all the credit because you would have found/discovered/shared the principal that gave us the solution to the problem.
    You are not only wasting your time, insisting on taking your wheel to the end alone, you are also wasting time for the whole population of this planet.
    Sometimes in life, what we want isn't really the best option.
    As i have said before, your dedication to this quest is admirable, you deserve an enormous part of the credit, even if someone else finds the answer.
    RH46

    ReplyDelete
  6. What John wrote:

    "Karl the Landgrave’s opinion that it was very simple is misleading...to see and realise all the complex interactions that occur very quickly could take a lot longer than a few minutes of study...I think that a sim of my design would prove quite difficult to make. I can’t remember seeing any sims with such complex actions."


    What Bessler wrote:

    "...after I have gone public, you'll be able to hear the wretches say: "Just look at the thing properly, and you'll see that there isn't much artistry to it...even a poor workman could put the thing together without a lot of head scratching; and get it completed almost before you could notice...But the point is, my invention is not fanciful. You'll see that there isn't much artistry to it...the time is long overdue, now that I have achieved my goal, once known only to God, that I and the world should see this principle, in itself so simple..."


    What Karl claimed:

    "His Highness was quoted as saying it was so simple and easy to construct that he was amazed that no one had managed to invent a similar machine before Herr Orffyreus...His Highness, who had seen the inside of it, said the machine was very simple...the machine is so simple that a carpenter’s boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, and that he would not risk his name in giving these attestations, if he did not have knowledge of the machine...the machine was very simple."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your point anon, but my point is that despite the quotations you have provided by Bessler and Karl, the fact that no one apart from Bessler has ever, as far as we know, built a PM machine, suggests that although the principle is simple to understand, and therefore easy to copy, reconstructing it from vague and ambiguous hints makes it a much harder proposition for us today.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John,
      Your statement above reminds me of certain people saying we "forgot" how to go to the moon!.. yes, how we "used" to have that information but it got lost. LOL

      Delete
    3. There have been several over the years who showed up on bw forum and bragged that they actually had working pm wheels decades ago. But, somehow those wheels all got lost and they can't remember how they made them! Reminds me of a kid who goes to school and tells his teacher he did do his homework assignment, but his dog ate it while he was sleeping.

      Delete
  7. Stick to your plan John. Finish and test your build to the best of your ability in the time frame you have given yourself. If it works it works, and you can let out a sigh of relief that you got to the finish line by yourself. If it doesn't, fully share as the above writers have said. I agree that if the design is ultimately a workable solution you will get the lion's share of the credit and accolades. And I'm guessing that the likes of Wubbly, who has honed his skills, will be eager to attempt a sim, as will others. Sims can and are way more complex than you have seen over at BW.com so don't let that be the judge. Having sim building skills to solve problems is a learned thing, from practice. Some like Wubbly also have the theoretical physics knowledge to back those skills up. Which augers well for an attempt of your concept. If you intimately know your mechanical concepts and the classical physics employed then there will be no unpleasant surprises all round. Best of luck for the final push.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
  8. SAM: Both drawings show the 23 gram shifter weight just fallen. It falls from the 12 o'clock position clockwise90 degrees to the 3 o'clock position, pulling the red cord up. Those lines are levers.The lower primary weight is yanked up, (does not fall down) at 6 o'clock. This sudden yank at 6 o'clock is the KIIKING MOVEMENT as clearly explained by John at besslerswheel.com ( the mechanisms theoretically) , copyrighted 2010.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see it. Yes; I see now how it works. Have you actually tried it? I'm surprised that the relativity small shifter weight could lift the much heaver primary weight-----------------------Sam

      Delete
    2. @Sam

      What happens with only one mechanism is really irrelevant no matter how impressive the shifting about of its weights might be. It's what happens when you put two or more of them on a wheel that really counts. When he does that he may be quite shocked to discover that, as his wheel turns, their collective center of gravity just drops right down to a location directly below the axle's center and stays there. Once that happens, there's no torque and the wheel will sit there motionless.

      Delete
    3. yes, you cold be right. i just wanted to figure it out---------sam

      Delete
  9. Look under your noses:
    - the weights gained force from their own movement
    - the weights are themselves the PM device
    - the PM structures retain free movement

    ReplyDelete
  10. SAM: Yes Sam, I have built two crossbars this way.The 23 gram shifter weight is able to lift 4 times as much because those long levers give good mechanical advantage.Bessler says one crossbar just barely turns the wheel. This lever system fulfills the simple design requirement witnessed by Karl. The next problem is how and WHEN the crossbar engages the rim. M.T. 138 may be showing us an escapement in B,C,and D. M.T.18 shows us that rim stops are needed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe your noses are just to big to see under.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ok I should have included one additional hint. These 4 are enough I think.
    - use lateral thinking

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good luck with it RADFORD!! You may be on the right track-----------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just a variation of MT 25 which does not work.

      https://besslerwheel.com/wiki/images/a/a5/Mt_025.gif

      Delete
  14. Do we all agree that most if not all MT illustrations represent the overbalanced part of the wheel, and the OU/prime mover part is not present? If you agree with this statement, then when Bessler makes comments or provides hints about a wheel, he is referring to the overbalanced part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that a true pm wheel is its own "prime mover". The prime mover is not some extra mechanism that must be attached to a wheel to make it work as many think. The MT wheels don't have that built in prime mover which is why none will work. The drawings he removed from MT and destroyed showed wheels that were their own prime movers.

      Delete
    2. From MT15

      "No. 15: This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight."
      - Johann Bessler

      If you are not familiar with 0ystein's decryption efforts, he has found clues to the design in both MT and AP, and the wheel does indeed consist of two parts, the overbalanced part and the prime mover part.

      Your statement that the wheels were their own prime movers has no basis in fact, not that it isn't correct, but you can't make that statement without proof of such.

      Delete
    3. @anon 19:33

      All that the note to MT 15 says is that wheel has no built in prime mover to be seen nor is it possible for that design to somehow, through "deduction" (which would lead to changes in it), be made to be its own prime mover. That is why, like the rest of the MT machines which are also not their own prime movers, MT 15 cannot work. It's just another hopeless nonrunner.

      I'm not aware of Oystein producing any wheel designs based on his "decryptions".

      Delete
    4. I don’t necessarily think the prime mover is some add on contraption. Rather it could be a linkage of some sort that is attached to some or all of the weights, and when it is a specific weights turn, it moves in a way that generates a force, and that force is applied to one or more other weights, to shift them to the overbalanced position. This satisfies Bessler’s statement that the weights are themselves the PM device.

      Delete
  15. Finding an overbalanced wheel part that will work is just as important to a successful runner as the prime mover (well almost). Knowing how centrifugal/centripetal forces will affect moving parts within the wheel, especially at high RPM do you really think moving weights inward and outward is a feasible solution? Can you think of any other method of producing overbalance without changing the radius of the weights?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I should think that the so called, prim mover, is the device / mechinisum which causes the wheel to be OOB. They are one and the same. Changing the radius of the weight(s), is the only way to OOB a wheel. It's very simple; the weights shift in on the up side and out on the down side--------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
  17. Changing the radius is not the only way to create overbalance.

    If you have a weight at 9pm and a weight at 3pm, and both are able to move upward along the perimeter of the wheel, say the 9pm weight is moved to 10pm, and the 3pm weight is moved to 2pm, then the CoM is shifted upwards creating overbalance and the weights are still at the same radius.

    This type of movement creates overbalance without the need to overcome centripetal/centrifugal forces and there is no change in angular momentum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 17:11A Yes, you are exactly right! Except there is one giant problem with your idea; it won't work.

      The only way is to change the radius, sory to say------------------Sam

      Delete
    2. @anon 17:11

      Your method will raise the CoM of the two weights at 3 and 9 up above the axle. But, that takes energy. Where does the wheel get that energy from? If someone says "from the prime mover", then where does the prime mover get it from?

      Delete
    3. FWEIW, I have a bad feeling that the mechanism is probably very simple; you know like two moving parts-----------------simple. For some reason great simplicity can be difficult to imagine, Sam

      Delete
    4. My point was there are two ways to create overbalance. Either you shift the weights radially outward or you move the weights circumferentially (along perimeter of wheel) towards the descending side of the wheel.

      Raising a weight, regardless of location or path requires energy. So where does the energy come from? The energy has to be created by some type of internal weight movement. That movement is what I like to think of as the prime mover.

      Delete
    5. @anon 23:02. If your prime mover "creates" energy, then it would be violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. If it does not violate that law, then where does it get the energy from to raise those weights on the wheel's perimeter?

      Delete
  18. BRAVO Sam! Simple enough for that carpenter's boy ( about 14 years old) to make one after a quick look!! Bessler does warn against CRAMMING so much into the wheel ,preventing the weights from freely swinging! Keeping it simple is the greatest challenge we builders face!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. RADFORD, Thanks for the kind words!! I constantly flip flop on this point. Every time I build a wheel, I think; there is no way in hell he could take one look at it and build one. But, then every time it doesn't work so, I'm back to wondering that maybe it is diabolically simple--------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What one man considers simple another will consider complicated and vice versa. I don't worry about how simple or complicated it looks. I just want anything that works for a change. Bessler liked mt 13 and that's what I'm trying to make work. I think whatever he had was a variation of mt 13.

      Delete
  20. 23:00A, You may be right about MT-13. However, what I was suggesting, or trying to suggest is; if you do want it to work, it can't be complected------------------Sam

    PS Perhaps the prime mover is a spring-------------

    ReplyDelete
  21. All questions and speculations will be answered in about 6 weeks time. Go JC!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, anon, 00.17. Still on track for full revelation.

      JC

      Delete
  22. One things for sure; it's impossible to tell any body, anything--------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
  23. John would it be a problem if someone produced a working BW before you, would you try to suppress it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No! I would welcome it. In the end as long as someone succeeds I shall be content. But I don’t think anyone will produce a working wheel before I share my information. I wonder how many will claim my design is exactly like theirs, once they’ve seen mine?

      JC

      Delete
    2. I regards to John's previous statement, if you want to protect your rights, you should take the course of action he took a year or so ago, and that is to encode a verbal description of your design and place at the bottom of each post. Then if and when you show a runner, you will have proof you came up with the idea of the design before John released his information. This isn't to discredit John in any way, but rather to show you came up with something similar too.

      Delete
  24. Only if it doesn't work, and it were true. Few would be that crass should it work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone might show up claiming he had John's design first whether or not it's a runner, but unless he published it openly somewhere first, his claim will mean nothing. John should not get too over confident that his design is so unique that there's no risk of someone else publishing a design very similar to his before the end of September. If that happens then John would suddenly lose the priority he mistaken thought could only be his.

      Read up on the story of Alexander Graham Bell's patenting of the telephone. Only a few hours after he filed at a local patent office, another inventor showed up to file the patent paperwork for his almost identical telephone invention. That second inventor's patent was rejected because Bell's patent application, a way of publishing the design, had priority even though by hours. I did not matter that the second inventor may have been working on his version for years prior to Bell and may even have had a working device months before Bell did. He is forgotten and Bell is considered the official inventor today.

      jason

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the wake-up call, Jason. You’re right of course and this was the original reason I chose to share everything this year......finally!

      JC

      Delete
    3. Very interesting and true story, Jason.

      One wonders what would have happened if Bell had a cold and could not make it to his patent office until several days later. His patent would have been the one rejected and he would be the one forgotten today. If that other inventor's telephone was then patented, would he have been able to get it put into widespread use as quickly as Bell did? Maybe he wouldn't have been able to do so and the fastest form of communication would have remained the telegraph for many decades afterward. That would then have slowed down technical progress with other inventions. Instead of our nice flatscreen tv's and laptop computers, we might only have primitive silent movies and radio sets available today and no solid state electronics. Maybe there would have been no WWI or WWII and the 100 million deaths they caused never would have happened. Maybe Climate Change would not be as bad as it is now...or it could be even worse because of those extra 100 million people and their children all wanting combustion powered automobiles to drive around in. Without WWII we might never have developed things like nuclear power, radar, jet aircraft, or rockets. As a result of that there might not have been a landing on the moon in 1969 and we'd only now be launching Sputnik. I believe very small changes in certain key historical events can lead to huge changes in future history. What would have happened if Tsar Peter the Great had not died on his way to visit Bessler and did buy his invention? What changes would that single event have made in present world?


      Anonymous and PROUD of it!

      Delete
  25. I don't think I will beat John in producing a runner, but I do believe I have a working design based solely off a mathematical model. I am attempting to build the critical prime mover component. I do think that part is patentable as it is the key component that would be copied in other designs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to add I will encode a description of the design and begin including it in my posts so I have proof of the design well before John's release. I will also add to my bw.com posts.

      Delete
  26. If you are only looking at the overall design as a whole then that can be patented, there will be segments of each mechanism that can be patented, then the mechanism as a single unit. We built a piece for Elite Units that has over 100 patents and the inventor received royalties off of each one of the patents individually. Of course, as the design is known, and refined there will be other pieces, sometimes much more simple that will accomplish the same task.... so wording like .... functions this way, but is not limited to..... pumping water, pounding rocks, generating electricity etc to cover the possibilities. I believe that the information that John has so tirelessly worked will point to a concept and also that there are many ways to accomplish this. I too, continue to push forward with building a design that appears to fit all of the parameters, but getting them all built and running is another mater altogether, and trying to keep up with a valid set of Digital Drawings is a daily task. Good Luck to all who seek...... I know this can be done, I just feel it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Gravittea, my preferred route is to avoid patenting the device. My reasons have always seemed good to me, but now I’m half way to reaching 76, I prefer not to have to waste time in preparing patents, nor waiting for them to be granted, even though I could exploit them as soon they are filed. Easier and more satisfying to share the design publicly but harder to generate financial rewards.

      JC

      Delete
  27. A patent is in my opinion the safest way to lose a lot of money (and nerves!!) and no guarantee to ever get anything. A patent is worthless if nobody buys it, unless you already have a lot of money to defend it legally in case it is used illegally. The easiest way to earn some recognition and money is to sell plans, maybe write a book. The other way is the one Bessler did. Not to disclose the design and try to sell a model with all rights for a respectable price.

    ovaron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The easiest way to earn some recognition and money is to sell plans, maybe write a book."

      Ken B. did exactly that last year and I don't think it's making him famous or rich. Everyone thinks when they find the solution or actually even build a working wheel based on it then it will be like winning a lottery jackpot and they will get famous and rich overnight. Did that happen to Bessler? He did get some brief local fame but no big money for all of his decades of work looking for a solution. The average person today has never heard of him or his wheels. Don't make the mistake of thinking everything will be much different now three hundred years after Bessler. Most likely when everyone realizes how little power these wheels generate there will be no serious commercial interest in them. Those chasing after pm should consider their efforts as labors of love rather than as quick ways to fame, riches, or saving the world from climate change. Chasing pm is like having an annoying itch that only you will be relieved of if you finally scratch it by finding a solution. Everyone else couldn't care less about your itch because they're too busy trying to scratch their own itches.

      Delete
    2. Again I agree, anon, 21.15! I have considered all the options and there is no easy or obvious answer, I know Ken sold some of his books but I don’t know whether he has made his fortune yet, but I doubt it, without a working model, few are persuaded. This is why I decided to try to complete my own wheel before publishing the details, hoping that it will work!

      JC

      Delete
    3. Without a working wheel you'll need to have a working sim at least which could then eventually lead others to making working wheels from it. Let's hope and pray that happens for you. You've been working away on this for more years than Bessler did on his first runner and it would be a damn shame if you came out of it empty handed.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous21 August 2020 at 21:15

      "Ken B. did exactly that last year and I don't think it's making him famous or rich."
      Ken has no functioning physical model. What he tries to sell is complete nonsense for anyone who is interested in Bessler. His concept has absolutely nothing to do with Besslers wheel and is pure fantasy.
      Only he who can show a working physical model has a chance to earn some money. What Ken tried to do, from the very beginning was doomed to fail. From a concept to a theoretical design is already a long way. From a theoretical to a final design or better construction plan a physical model is in my opinion indispensable. If you only try to design a model with simulation software like Ken you have no idea how difficult it can be to build a physical model from a theoretical design.

      ovaron

      Delete
    5. When you say "His concept has absolutely nothing to do with Besslers wheel and is pure fantasy" that is really only your opinion. Many have looked at that youtube video he made last year of the wheel design he claims is Bessler's and have been very impressed by it because it seems to agree with all of the more obvious clues Bessler left in his writings and even with that line about "the weights which rest below must rise up in a flash" or something like that which happens for the weights moving from 9 to 10:30 in his wheel.

      It's true a working wheel based on his design does not exist at this time but at least he claims to have working sims showing what he's found does work and he wouldn't have wrote his book if he did not have those sims. I don't think he's lying but of course his sims could be giving him false results that fooled him. But he says he checked them very carefully to make sure that wasn't happening. I don't know because I'm not an expert on sims. In his book he gives the plans needed to build a working three foot diameter one direction wheel and says it could be finished in only a few weeks. It probably won't be that easy though.

      If John can't get his five mechanism wheel running then I think we will see how very determined he will become to be able to also claim he's got some working sims for it even though he can't build it and no one else will have either at that time. I give Ken much credit for the effort he made which is exceptional as far as Bessler's wheels are concerned, imo. For anyone that hasn't seen what he claims is Bessler's wheel design yet it can be found on youtube at

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

      He also gives links there to some other interesting short videos about Bessler's wheels he's made over the years.

      Delete
    6. Thanks for that link anon 01:25 because I never saw that wheel video before. I agree it's very interesting. Basically it's a sort of an advanced version of MT13. He's decreased the number of levers from twelve down to eight and added an extra arm which gives a lever that unusual letter Y shape when it reaches 12 o'clock. The crescent shaped ballast weight near A and its opposed lifting wheel near B are now gone. To lift a lever as it approaches 12 o'clock the wheel depends on the stretched springs attached to the lever and the ropes attaching its two extra angled arms to the other levers. Unlike MT13 the arms with the weights on them don't suddenly fly up toward the drum rim as they near 12 o'clock. The lifting actually starts at 9 o'clock and isn't completely finished until a lever passes 3 o'clock and the weight arm finally hits some sort of stop in the drum. The fastest lifting definitely seems to take place between 9 and 10:30.

      No one can say Ken's version lacks coordination with all of those ropes between the levers. In fact I don't think it could run without them. But the center of gravity of the weights is very close to the axle and the torque that results will be low. Anyone trying to sim or build this better make sure his work is as precise as possible so the center of gravity will stay on the descending side of the axle as the wheel rotates.

      Without seeing something that looks better I would definitely consider this as a possible candidate for what Bessler used. But to be completely convinced I'd have to see others make working sims of it and preferably a working wheel. Maybe that will happen someday.

      jason

      Delete
    7. @Jason. Parts of the note for MT 13 read "This is a new weight invention with no belts or chains but each weight is separate and free...This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed."

      MT13 is the only wheel in MT that Bessler gives that kind of approval to. He knows that there is too much friction in it which he would not know unless he actually built it. Also, it's described as new which means it was probably one of last wheels he built before he finally found his working wheel solution. You saying that Ken's wheel and possibly Bessler's wheel is based on it makes sense to me. Bessler must have realized it would only work if he could somehow use its other lever weights to lift up some of the lever weights as they moved toward 12:00 o'clock and that must be what he eventually figured out how to do.

      I've tried building wheels similar to this in the past and had the same friction problem show up just as soon as one of the weights touched a ramp intended to raise it up. Using the dropping of some weights to lift up other weights with ropes never occurred to me but it would have eliminated the use of the ramps. Maybe that's what does work and Bessler finally managed to do it after he did a lot of experimenting with connecting ropes to find out how many were needed and how they had to be attached to the levers.

      Delete
    8. I haven't been here in a while but it's nice to see this blog finally coming out of its "suspended animation". These posts about MT 13 caught my eye since I've commented on it in the past. Those Y shaped levers really stand out and if they are that important then they should somehow have been indicated in the drawing of MT 13. But where and how? I think I've found how Bessler did that. Here's MT 13 for reference.

      https://besslerwheel.com/wiki/images/a/a5/Mt_013.gif

      First count the number of outer levers and there are 12 of them. Next add up the alphanumeric values of all of the letters or A + B + C + C + D = 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 = 13 which just happens to equal the number of the MT drawing and is also a number associated with God who Bessler claimed gave him the secret of making pm wheels. Finally add the 12 and the 13 to get 25. What is the meaning of 25 here? Simple. The 25th letter of the alphabet is Y! It's a difficult clue to find, but it's definitely there. This could just be a coincidence but when it comes to alphanumeric clues in Bessler's drawings I don't believe in "coincidences"!

      I think I mentioned before that MT 13 reminds me of a big happy face with the letter C's being the eyes and that half moon weight the smiling mouth. Why did Bessler give us a smiling face only with this one MT drawing? Maybe because the final wheel he made that worked was based on MT 13 and that made him very happy?

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
  28. 21:15A At least with a working wheel, you could tell the critics to "F" off------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be a real pleasure Sam!

      JC

      Delete
    2. Why do we want to make a working circle? Is it just to prove something to someone? So I am asking where the inventor's soul has gone, is everything to be converted into money? Where is the quest to discover the nature of the planet we live on? You need to have and cultivate the soul of a scientist to bring good to all its inhabitants.
      Let's take a look around and let the mammon out of hand. You have to be very careful with what you are aiming for because Bessler warned that you could be overcome by the devil if you see it in action.
      It will not be a toy, but there is a natural phenomenon behind it, which is unknown. This way of operating the wheel will determine all directions of modern science because it comes from its character. This is important to bear in mind when dealing with this matter. One has to dream, dreams add wings, but not everything should be relativized. You should get to know the culture of thought and the culture of communication proposed by Bessler because it is the way to success.

      Delete
    3. Ovaron; Is right, on all accounts. You have to build a wheel first, then a simulation, to show how it works, would be very useful-----------------Sam

      Delete
  29. Yes. A working wheel will be the only acceptable proof.

    Telling, explaining, with diagrams, or even a sim is not gonna do the job. That has been tried before and got us nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Marinus. "Yes. A working wheel will be the only acceptable proof.

    Telling, explaining, with diagrams, or even a sim is not gonna do the job. That has been tried before and got us nowhere."

    It will do the job if JC's source of excess impetus/weight (excess torque) is clear to see to almost everyone. It is conceivable that a visibly plausible theory might be scuppered in a real world build by too many internal frictions, if the advantage is small, so that the frictions eat up any tendency to self rotate, as suggested by mt13's comments.

    It is not known whether a sim is able to show a positive self sustaining result which 'appears' to break the Conservation Laws of Energy and Momentum. Only because no one has produced such a logical mechanical arrangement to test. I suspect that if JC's mechanical answer is in fact a workaround to those Laws but does not depart from known Newtonian Mechanics then it probably can demonstrate the principles in action successfully. It might take some finessing of the sim to get it to behave as JC anticipates, which is a normal development and testing progression (the beta testing).

    I would add that even a very obviously plausible and logical design will still be met in some quarters by total resistance without the final proof of a working real world build. That is because there will be the gamut of emotional responses out there. However most who can keep their heads will recognize the potential for a runner from the ground work done by JC, if indeed he has a valid proposal for a mechanical gravity PM wheel.

    Ken B's groundwork and sim did not get a wide acceptance as an 'obvious truth' because of a number of things. And you can read what those concerns were in earlier JC's blogs, so as to not repeat them here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The main problem with MT13 was not bearing type friction or drag which could be virtually eliminated with enough lubrication. The problem was that the GPE lost by the dropping of the COG of all of the weights during 30 degrees of wheel rotation was not enough to raise that single weight whose lever's extra little arm hit wheel B as the lever's pivot approached the 12:00 position. Many of the other designs in MT suffer from this exact same problem in different forms as do most of the non MT designs pm chasers are working on today. Not much has changed in three centuries.

    As far as Ken B's wheel is concerned, IIRC the two major objections to it in the past seemed to be how low its torque would be and how many coordinating cords it required for its operation. However, Bessler stated that his first 3 foot diameter wheel (which is what Ken shows in his video) did have very low torque and could barely keep itself in motion. As far as the number of cords is concerned, if you study his video carefully you'll realize that of the 24 cords shown, only 16 are actually used for the coordinated shifting of its levers. The other 8 cords only act when stretched tight as tethers to block continued lever swinging as a lever's pivot approaches the 9:00 position of the wheel. He calls those "stop cords".

    So the coordination of the eight levers only requires each lever to be connected by 2 cords to two other levers. It's not that much to require for the sake of achieving pm, but I'm sure many builders will shy away from such a cord laden design just as they will from any design with springs in it even though Bessler suggested that his working design did use springs but just not like those in wind up clock movements of the time. Ken's wheel appears to use steel helical expansion type springs.

    On page 214 of DT Bessler wrote:

    “We must bear an important point. It is impossible to construct any new machine except by using a certain type of material.”

    That "certain type of material" may have been improved steel used to make the springs in it and which made the springs less prone to being permanently damaged by repeated stretching and contraction. This type of steel was developed for the various spring powered clocks and other mechanisms beginning to appear back then.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Full quote and context from DT Pages 214 and 215.

    We must, of course, bear in mind an important point which will not be lost on any person who has not willfully imprisoned or dismissed the common sense with which he was born. Namely, that there is one vital, self-evident proviso attached to the extraordinarily simple and clear definition which we have given. For it is impossible to construct any new machine except by using a certain type of material, whatever it may be, of greater or lesser durability. And no material can possibly be conceived of, let alone actually exist, which does not wear out, break or become unusable in some respect through age, in some particular period of time far short of “infinity.” Hence it must be self-evident that the use of terms such as “infinity” or “perpetuity” in the definition does not imply a divine eternity, or an “age of ages”, but rather a concept dependent on the respective, not absolute, durability of the material substrates employed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that full quote anon 03:21 which clearly shows it does not just refer to a wheel's spring material. Bessler is basically saying you can use different materials for your wheel and since none of them will last forever, pm is only an ideal you can imagine but which can never be achieved in practice. The best you can hope for, if you actually do have a wheel whose design is theoretically capable of pm, is to use the most durable materials you can find which will allow it to run as long as possible before it breaks down and that will be far shorter than eternity. Maybe Bessler included that quote as a way of dealing with those skeptics who would dismiss his wheel as not being pm just because it needed to be stopped for occasional repairs or maintenance?

      jason

      Delete
    2. Yes and he referred to it as the ‘so-called perpetual motion’, implying that was not strictly true or accurate.

      JC

      Delete
    3. But assume that one could actually build Bessler's wheels from indestructible materials that never deteriorated or wore out. Would they then run forever?

      Delete
    4. As long as it remained within the field of gravity. JC

      Delete
  33. Hey I’m Martin Reed,if you are ready to get a loan contact.Mr Benjamin via email: 247officedept@gmail.com ,WhatsApp:+1 989-394-3740 I’m giving credit to his Service .They grant me the sum 2,000,000.00 Euro. within 5 working days.Mr Benjamin work with  group investors into pure loan and debt financing at the  low ROI to pay off your bills or buy a home Or Increase your Business. please I advise everyone out there who are in need of loan and can be reliable, trusted and capable of repaying back at the due time of funds.

    ReplyDelete

Bessler Collins Gravity Wheel Preface

The end of September is nigh and I must honour my commitment to share what I know about the design  of Johann Bessler’s wheel. I also promis...