Thursday, 10 September 2020

The Solving of Bessler’s Wheel.

The search for the secret of Bessler’s perpetual motion machine continues unabated.  It is impossible to prevent the same wrong ‘solutions’ being found time after time, it is in the nature of this occupation that people tend to work alone and therefore there is every likelihood that each one will travel the same path as the previous one, making the same discoveries and the same mistakes.  But there some basic assumptions routinely made which I believe will turn out to be wrong.

The physical laws which we are told, prevent the possibility of Johann Bessler’s wheel working as he claimed, are correct in general, but the fact that the established laws are correct doesn’t mean that we can’t use the falling of objects of mass, caused by gravity, to generate rotation and thus electricity ultimately.  We keep muttering the same phrase, “gravity is not a source of energy” parrot fashion, but this stark fact implies a number of assumptions which overlook the ramifications of this force or field - the terminology is confusing and confused. I’m sure it is correct that gravity is not a source of energy, but despite that, we use it as an energy source every day, everywhere in the world.  Running water to drive any number of energy consuming devices and weight driven clocks.  Of course you have to have a plentiful supply of water, or the ability to raise the weights again. Strictly speaking it doesn’t supply energy to these forms of motion, but enables them to move in its presence

In 1841 Julius von Mayer stated that  “energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but it can be converted from one kind to another”, of course gravity is not an energy source and we haven’t found a way to turn it on or off yet but its action can be converted into energy of another kind. What about magnetism?  Magnetism can be described as a force or field too. but it has no energy of its own.  It is extremely useful for converting energy from one form to another.  Most of the energy derived from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric energy and wind comes from systems using magnetism in the conversion process.

Gravity too, can be described as a force or field and has no energy of its own, but it is also widely used for converting potential energy into kinetic energy - by enabling things to fall.  Magnetism requires motion to move electrons along wire, so we use spinning turbines for instance to push the electrons through circuits past magnets.  To make the turbines spin we use running water, courtesy of the effect of gravity.  So even though magnetism is a vital ingredient of our electricity we still need falling water, or wind etc., to turn the turbines.

So the ingredient necessary to all gravity operated motion is available to us, but so far we have to rely on an inexhaustible supply of water, for example in our hydroelectric generators.  Where gravity supplies potential energy, we have to rely on either a huge falling distance - or something or someone repeatedly lifting the weights back to their starting position.

My point is that there’s no reason to deny the possibility of using gravity to generate electricity, we just need to find a way of lifting the fallen weights back up again.  It’s no good saying it can’t be done, we know Bessler did it, we know Karl validated his machine and we know, instinctively that there is a way. We have even know what the solution needs to include - a design which breaks the symmetry which has always maintained a stranglehold on every design we have come up with.  

JC


63 comments:

  1. Hello, John, I hope you are well and that your long search is coming soon to a successfull issue. You write: "we just need to find a way of lifting the fallen weights back up again." Not necessarily, I think. An answer is in your last sentence: "just break continuously the symmetry". Breaking the symmetry doesn't need to lift up any fallen weight: if a side of the wheel is continuously heavier than the other, the wheel must rotate, like a fall-less fall. --- Michel Gaillard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Michel, I’m trying to finish my construction by the end of this month, so I should know soon if I’m right.

      I agree with you and yet I still maintain that weights have to be lifted. You are right and so am I! Is that not strange?

      JC

      Delete
    2. AP, pg. 334

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

      Delete
  2. I checked my calendar and noticed that yesterday was september ninth or 9/9. IIRC that was the day that soothsaying guy using his own brand of numeralogy predicted months ago that john would finally know if his five lever mech wheel was a runner or not. The soothsayer also predicted if john couldnt get his wheel running by that date he'd be sending the design off to his good friend fletcher to see if he could make a working sim from it. Another anon poster recently advised john to send a drawing of it over to bwf's wubbly who makes really great sims. john's been more active than usual here so I'm betting he's already sent the design to both fletcher and wubbly to see what they can do with it and to compare their results. FAWK it could be in the hands of more than two sim makers by now. If john can't get it working let's hope he's got a working sim for us by the end of this month which is now only three short weeks away. We've been in a long dark tunnel for years with him and his secret wheel project and now it looks like there's finally light up ahead!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven’t finished it yet, so still time for success.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I agree anon 11:49. We've been in that "long dark tunnel" long enough. Time for some sunshine! I don't expect him to get anything running although I certainly wish he could. Let's hope that one of his buddies can at least make a working sim of it for him.

      Delete
    3. Lol! As Mr. Lepard Spots said last year "A leopard doesn't change his spots". Don't be too surprised when the end of September rolls around three weeks from now and we see NOTHING from him again! He'll find some excuses why this is just not the "right time" to "reveal all". I'm looking forward to seeing how creative he gets with his excuses this time.

      Delete
    4. @anon 05:40

      I think things are differenet now and he will finally disclose. Even if what he has cant work it might still give others some ideas that lead to success. The more info we have the better.

      Delete
  3. JC,
    I would be very interested to know if your current build falls into the category of a "gravity wheel with a fundamental difference", which i explained in my thread with that title.
    My thoughts, which i have shared, would be that if it does, then it may be a runner and if it doesn't, then it will be a failure.
    This is obviously only my opinion, based on my current line of thinking.
    If your wheel doesn't fall into this category, i do hope you prove my thoughts to be wrong.
    RH46

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure if it falls into either category. I didn’t really get what was different, but it’s probably my fault RH46

      JC

      Delete
    2. The difference is fundamental and simple.
      Either the weights are fixed to a specific section of the wheel, each weight does, it's thing, in exactly the same section of the wheel or they don't.
      Divide a wheel into 8 sections N° 1,2 3 etc.
      If a weight's path is N°1, N°1, 1, 1, 1, 1, etc it doesn't.
      If a weight's path is N°1, N°2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, etc it doesn't.
      If a weight's path is N°1, N°2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, etc it does.
      If a weights path is N°1, N°4, 7, 2, 5, 8, 3, 6, 1, 4, 5, 8, 3, 6, 1 etc it does.

      Delete
    3. Thanks unknown, as I said, I don’t know if it falls into RH46s two categories, and I also find your explanation inadequate for my simple mind. Your description of the weight’s path being fixed to a specific section of the wheel is insufficient for me to answer because you made inaccurate assumptions.

      JC

      Delete
    4. John, making inaccurate assumptions, is a good point. If you were to explain in what way you find them inaccurate we could make progress.
      The only assumption that could, in my opinion, imply that your wheel does not fall into one or the other categories, is that no weights move anywhere. All weights are fixed solidly to the wheel and at no point does a weight move one millimeter from its allocated position with regard the wheel. This is, effectively an assumption, an assumption that i believe to be justified, because Bessler's clues do imply that weights move.
      If a weight moves, it's movement can only fall into one of the two categories.
      There are sub categories in each category, but the fundamental question is, which of the two main categories does it fall?
      There is no other option, which is why the difference is fundamental.

      Delete
  4. Just a thought: We know from eye witnesses that Bessler's wheel was a self- accelerating movement. Therefore the 3rd law of motion does not apply. This means that the 2nd law also does not apply, since the two laws are logically linked. Comments,suggestions, criticism ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are linked but I don’t see why the second and third laws of motion would necessarily be involved negatively or positively. Being a self-starter and self-accelerating cannot mean those laws don’t apply Richard, in my opinion. In which case they will apply appropriately?

      JC



      JC

      Delete
    2. I looked up ‘Intractance-Fourth Law of Motion--The Adams Chronicle’, and the ‘jerk’ action has been discussed quite extensively on the forum and I came to the conclusion that the so-called ‘jerk’ is exactly the same as I described many years ago on one of my websites. It is simply a requirement for a very quick raising of the weight at the most optimum moment. Any delay reduces the effect of the action, leading to a loss of input into rotation..

      JC

      Delete
  5. Hi John, The key to the asymmetry is in these words "suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise " A.P.357. Suddenly means that the weight rapidly accelerates up (3rd quadrant). The wheel "intelligence" looses track of that weight( for the moment).The wheel re-locates that weight after the 12 o'clock position.So the wheel turns by being UNDER balanced in the 3rd and 4th quadrants!!! The second law only deals with constant acceleration. See Intractance-Fourth Law of Motion--The Adams Chronicle .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sudden rise of "excess weight" requires the expenditure of energy. Where does that energy come from if B's wheels were not just clever fakes with some sort of wound up springs in them? Btw I do believe he WAS a hoaxer. Had to be.

      Delete
  6. FWEIW, A gravity wheel, or WEIGHTED wheel, (which it may come to be known), isn't much different then a water wheel. The pendulums weights have to swing out at or about 2:00, Lock to the wheel, I.E., no longer pendulums, drive the wheel down like the water on a water wheel, then release at Bottom dead center, (BDC). After 6:00 they revert back to being pendulums and return easily back to the top of the wheel.The locking and unlocking is accomplished by using one-way clutches. They grab when the weight is going down and release as soon as the weight starts up.
    Like it or not, that's what's going to work-----------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Swinging your pendulums out at 2:00 requires the use of energy. Where does that energy come from?

      Delete
    2. 15:41A, Yes, you are quite right. I'm using a spring. Fortunately, it's fairly easy to swing a pendulum 90 degrees, after that forget it. Also a spring is very fast. Sense they can only swing about 90 degrees, it has to happen at about 2:00, 30 degrees before side dead center,(SDC); for them to be straight out at 3:00. Then they have to lock to the wheel and drive it down.

      It's a lot harder to do then what it looks like----------------------Sam

      Delete
    3. I know what you are thinking; how do you stretch out the spring. I'll try to explain it. It has to do with the relative motion between the pendulums and the wheel. The pendulums go around and around in a circle but don't rotate, except when they are locked to the wheel. I don't want to disclose exactly how it works, but to give you a sense of it, The spring hooks to the pendulum and to a point on the wheel. The relative motion between the two of them, stretches out the spring, then at just the right time it flips the pendulum straight out.
      Any way that's what's supposed to happen----------------------------Sam

      Delete
    4. Good luck with it, Sam. At least you've got some springs in the mix and Bessler did hint that his wheels contained springs only not like the kinds found in clocks by which I assume meant the spiral kind.

      Delete
    5. 18:11A, Thanks, thanks a lot. Flipping the pendulum IS working. For about 330 degrees of rotation the spring shouldn't do any thing. But it wants to jamb up or pull the pend. backwards, or fly off. It's madding, because it has nothing to do with the novelty of it-----------------------------------Sam

      Delete
  7. That's all fairly easy to sim Sam. Time to download a free sim program and get started? Or get someone to sim it for you. Nothing frightening about them and as easy to learn as navigating your smart phone for the first time, only more useful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 22:11A, I think you are right. At this point a sim would be useful to show how it should work. But I'm 80 years old, I don't have a smart phone. My level of under standing is very low. Soft ware is a black hole for me, when you are 80 years old you will know what I mean. It has past me by like a freight train--------------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My goodness Sam, I thought I was old, but you’ve beaten me by about five years! You encourage me by still looking for a solution at such a venerable age, well done. We must just keep going Sam and good luck. Someone must succeed soon.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I'm not sorry to you, Sam, for my post on 8/31/2020 that has been deleted. I didn't know you were that age, man. A little truth written about yourself works wonders.

      Delete
    3. 07:38, Not sure what you mean but will take it as a compliment. I don't remember your post; the memory is full of holes..............

      John Collins; thanks. Yes, unfortunately, only a working wheel has any meaning------------------------------------Sam

      Delete
    4. Yes that's a compliment, Sam. Now I understand .
      You gained a lot in my eyes. You're okay.

      Delete
    5. I keep thinking about Bessler's comment:

      "God would feed me even if a thousand artists, through their learning, should discover the secret of my work. But should they fail, please don't let them blame me! And they have all failed, despite much hard work - that much is true! Every single one of them has had something in his favor - plenty of grit or plenty of mathematical subtlety - but I'll spare you those details! It still goes on - they chisel away at it till the day they drop down dead!"

      jason

      Delete
    6. I've tried very hard to enplane how a "Weighted Wheel", (as opposed to a water wheel), should work, but I'm forever baffled by the total lack of interest in it--------------Sam

      Delete
    7. Ken Behrendt has an interesting explanation for how Bessler's wheels worked. Basically it is that the arrangement of their connected together levers could constantly extract the energy of the masses of their weights as a wheel rotated and then immediately transfer it to all parts of the wheel equally to increase their speeds around the axle's center. They could also transfer energy to any machines attached to the axle to make them work as well. Ken's conclusions about Bessler's design are apparently based almost solely on a collection of previously unknown alphanumeric clues he thinks he's found in the two DT portraits.

      He's either right or wrong about those new clues of his. If he's wrong then I don't see how they could ever lead to a working wheel. Yet he claims to have working simulations proving the clues he found are genuine. I like others here am now looking forward to seeing those "major clues" that John briefly mentioned months ago that prove his wheel is the one Bessler actually had. Aside from revealing his design to us before the end of this month we also need to see the clues he based it on.

      Ken also thinks that Bessler never really had TRUE pm wheels which would be ones that could run forever while constantly delivering energy to attached machines to operate them. But he says even Bessler's smallest wheel could probably run for millions of years before it finally used up all of its large but limited supply of internal energy and had to stop turning (assuming that some failed part did not stop it long before then). That's such a long run time that it would be impossible to actually test it. But as far as I'm concerned any wheel that can run for a few million years (or even a few thousand years!) should earn the title of "perpetual motion" even if it's not really that according to the strict scientific definition of how a perpetual motion machine would have to work which means to be able to run forever.

      Delete
    8. Yes thank you Ken for that. I’m sure everyone is aware of your ‘interesting explanation’ for how Bessler’s wheels worked. The think is you have made the whole thing far too complex, and Bessler was always concerned that people would not think they had received their money’s worth when they paid £20, 000. In fact the concept is very simple but the mechanisms which make it work have some complex counter-intuitive actions. In place of your 40 or more cords mine has just 5.

      JC

      Delete
    9. Do not be disappointed by the lack of interest in the "load wheel" now you have your 5 minutes, which only belongs to you, and move forward even more.
      You have a good nose, Sam, and you have a hunch.
      In the deleted post for you, I wrote: "Because it draws from the fullness that is not lacking."
      I have a similar understanding of the problem to yours.
      That would be it. Good luck.

      Delete
    10. It's impressive that Ken B was even able to come up with a rational explanation for how Bessler's wheels worked and where they got the energy from that they put out. It doesn't require them to be violating the first law of thermodynamics which is unacceptable to the scientists and it also most importantly doesn't require them to be fakes which is what all the skeptics are sure they had to be. It's a sort of middle of the road approach.

      His wheel design supposedly has forty cords in it but as others noted from studying his youtube video it could be made with a minimum of only sixteen cords connecting different levers to synchronize their motions so they keep their weights' center of gravity on the descending side of the axle as the wheel rotates. John has finally mentioned that he has five cords in his wheel but he does not tell us yet if they each connect different levers or if they are each attached to parts inside of a single lever's mechanism which I assume must somehow made up of several smaller levers.

      I too am looking forward to seeing John's final disclosure of his wheel design. Only two and a half weeks to go now!

      Delete
    11. 19:52A Thanks for your support and encouragement, it means a lot----------Sam

      Delete
  9. Unfortunately Ken's explanation is not 'rational' for me. Effectively his hypothesis says the weights that drive his wheels lose energy/mass over a very long time until they are theoretically fully depleted. This is analogous to an isotopes half life etc with which we are familiar. However no one seriously suggests that a decaying isotope ends up eventually with zero mass or internal energy. Furthermore, since all the wheel parts are of the natural world, following that hypothesis, they would all lose mass/energy over the same time at the same rate, and for which there is no evidence in support. And since B's. weights are just weights, and could have been lead, gold, uranium, iron, brass, containers of water, or compressed wood shavings etc, then it looks even less likely as a working hypothesis, because there was nothing special about the weights used. They were simply the medium for gravity force to work on to give a sustained wheel imbalance and an excess of torque in the direction of rotation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "However no one seriously suggests that a decaying isotope ends up eventually with zero mass or internal energy."

      That's only because all radioactive isotopes will eventually decay into stable isotopes and once that happens they will no longer be radioactive and lose any more of their mass. What Ken is suggesting is that, inside of a running Bessler's wheel, even common metals like lead, iron, copper, etc. will continue to lose mass even though the isotopes of those elements are stable and non radioactive. It's a strange concept because it logically implies that after millions or even billions of years one could wind up with parts inside of a Bessler's wheel that were actually massless! Their atoms would still physically exist, but have no gravitational or inertial properties.

      If that did happen, then in order to keep a Bessler wheel running it would have to have its lead weights replaced with ones that were unused and still had their normal masses and as a result their normal gravitational and inertial properties. What would happen to those used massless weights taken from a Bessler wheel? Good question. Maybe as soon as they came into contact with unused matter with its normal mass they would immediately draw mass out of them and then reduce their mass by the same amount? This would be like touching a cold object to a hot one and thermal energy flowing out of the hot object into the cold one until they both had the same temperature. Since the weight carrying levers inside of the wheel were attached to the drum by steel pivot pins, maybe they would then actually draw mass out of the wooden framework of the drum and axle? The axle in turn would draw mass out of the vertical upright axle supports and they again in turn would draw mass out of the building the wheel was located in and that building would then draw mass out of the ground around the building. With all of the mass of a planet to use such a wheel could virtually run for trillions of years! Still not forever but maybe longer than our universe will last?!

      In any event, whoever finally gets a Bessler wheel running will have the scientific world scurrying about trying to figure out how it works. We might then see the beginning of a whole new branch of physics in which Bessler's pm wheels occupy center stage as objects to be respected along with their inventor and not as objects to be scorned as hoaxes.

      Delete
    2. Very interesting discussion here. Assuming that those used up massless weights coming out of Bessler's wheels don't draw replacement mass out of any objects they came into contact with, then getting rid of them should be easy. Just release them outdoors after they are out of the wheel and they will immediately begin rising to the top of our planet's atmosphere due to buoyancy. Once they get there the Sun's solar wind should then blow them right out of our solar system. They are the perfect kind of waste. The kind that automatically gets rid of itself!

      Delete
  10. You draw a very long bow with absolutely no proof of such a proposition anchored in reality or science. Therefore it is pure speculation at best. And not a useful one imo.

    And that is because you are trying to associate a derived energy (capacity to do Work) produced from a gravity force wheel such as Bessler's. And as such gravity force is not gravity energy (GPE to KE) as we all know. The rather obvious conclusion is that B's. wheels were continuously unbalanced with asymmetric torque in the direction of rotation. If this is accepted as self evident then there is no need or requirement to invent some spurious link between a force and energy as capacity to do Work via a loss or redistribution of internal mass and energies over time. The mechanically sustained imbalance arrangement within the wheel make that association for us, by default. Even if science currently can not explain how that default manifests, simply because the mechanical paradox has not been discerned since Bessler to enlighten us and change the paradigm of mechanics, conservative forces and, the relation to capacity to do Work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree absolutely. Why introduce a highly speculative unproven theory when the answer to where the energy comes from is, as Bessler himself stated, clearly the falling weights. Occam’s razor applies here. I’ve always dismissed KB’s theory of decaying isotopes because the amount of loss of mass over a period of one or million wheel revolutions would be so infinitesimally small as to have no effect on overbalancing the wheel. Bessler said that he had improved the mechanism to the point where an ounce or two difference in the weights would not matter.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I don't think JC yet correctly understands exactly how KB is suggesting Bessler's wheels worked.

      First, KB DOES say that the energy from Bessler's wheels came from its weights as well as from their levers since they also moved along with the weights. Thus, his wheels contained an internal source of energy but it was not obvious to the scientists back then and many still don't recognize it even today.

      Second, KB has repeatedly stated that the loss of mass of the weights and levers in Bessler's wheels did NOT involve any sort of nuclear reactions or decay of radioisotopes taking place.

      Third, he agrees that the continued overbalancing of Bessler's wheels was not due to the changes in the masses of its weights and levers which was only a fraction of a picogram for every drum rotation. The overbalance was due to the orientations of the levers which was maintained as a drum rotated. But that overbalance would slowly decrease as drum speed increased until the drum reached a maximum speed. He thinks that was due to the slow increase with speed of centrifugal forces working on the weights that messed up the timely shifting of their levers.

      Fourth, KB says that in principle if one of Bessler's wheels could actually run nonstop for millions of years there would be a significant and measurable decrease in the masses of its weights and levers. This, however, might not happen if the wheel's environment can somehow restore the weights and levers lost masses over time. Whether or not this happens is not now known.

      According to the "Critique" published by Christian Wagner (and translated by Andrew Witter), Wagner stated:

      “Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so called superior force.”

      I think what those children in the lane that Bessler referred to were playing with was a simple seesaw. The kids would find a long wood plank and place it on something to use as a fulcrum. Then one kid would sit at each end of the plank. By the two kids leaning both in one direction and then the other, each end of the seesaw would alternately rise and fall and carry each kid alternately up and down. Kids are still playing on modern versions of these in playgrounds all over the world today.

      The principle shows what happens because of the alternating offsetting of the two kids' combined center of gravity from one side of the fulcrum to the other and it's also suggested by the action of those hammermen toys in MT's Toy Page. Bessler was telling everyone that his wheels worked by simple overbalance.

      In his two direction wheels, which probably contained two one direction wheels placed back to back inside their drums, the combined center of gravity of the two wheels could be made to slide from one side of the axle center to the other depending upon which way someone pushed the drum to start the wheel turning. That then made the torque on the axle reverse direction as well.

      Delete
    3. You are like a drowning man, Ken, clinging to his mystical beliefs, hoping against hope that someone will save him by swallowing all your errant theorising based on invisible hints and clues.

      JC

      Delete
    4. Sounds like a case of "projection". If John can't get someone to save him with a working sim for his wheel design, he will be like a man who fell off a ship in the middle of the ocean with an anchor tied to his ankle. Right to the bottom he will go! But as I said above, to prevent that he will make sure he reveals NOTHING come the end of this month. Soon everyone will KNOW I'm right. 15 days to go...expect some of his most creative excuses yet!

      Delete
    5. @anon 02:41. You need to be less cynical. If John promised he'd reveal his design before the end of this month then he will. You need to have more faith in people.

      Delete
    6. I will sow the seeds of healthy insecurity and say:
      if someone has already found the solution and gives John time to show his cards first. He risks that John will win the palm and he will be forgotten himself. Who will be more polite in this situation and will give way. Can he be called a fool and the other a genius?
      Will the seed of uncertainty sown silence the cry of anticipation?
      It is possible that neither the first nor the second have anything for this quarrel.

      Delete
    7. @anon 04:56 and all. Lol! Come Thursday, October 1st everyone here will realize exactly why I'm so "cynical" when it comes to John "revealing all"! You will then all be amazed at how much more cynical you will also become after that date. Watch and see...

      Delete
    8. I like people who strongly defend their beliefs and you belong to them.
      You are a true warrior. Your stubbornness gives food for thought.
      We will see.

      Delete
    9. John has promised several times this year that he would disclose his wheel design before the end of September whether it worked or not. That's good enough for me!

      Delete
  11. Bravo Anon 13 Sept. 22:43!! "Continuously unbalanced asymmetric torque in the direction of rotation " Well said. But it is the UNDER balancing in quadrants #3 and #4 that is crucial, not the OVER balancing in #1 and #2. As the weight entering quadrant #3 suddenly flies up, the wheel "intelligence" loses track of it and begins to seek equilibrium. A wheel may not "know" much,but it does know when equilibrium is found.Clever Mr. Bessler made sure it was NEVER found!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi RADFORD! Yes, that's good stuff, (Sounds like Fletcher), wish I could use big words like that. Maybe people would listen to me, but I doubt it---------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Big words" may sound impressive, Sam, but they are often used by their speakers to conceal the fact that they haven't the faintest idea of what they are talking about. As Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

      Delete
    2. AA13:22, It's hard to explain how a weighted wheel, (it runs on weights), works because no one has any experience with it. Besides, I have to stick with small words, to prevent my spell checker from catching on fire---------------Sam

      Delete
    3. I can use big words or small. Spill them fast or slow. Make sentences long or short. Use the vernacular in preference to the scientific, and vice versa. I don't tend to talk about complex matters such as these with six year olds and bar maids as a rule. No offense to children, animals, or the erudite blog readers %7)

      Delete
  13. Glad you enjoyed it Sam ! We could use a little more humor on John's blog. As someone used to say: Keep your corners up--Her way of saying-keep smiling!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Everybody keep their nerve and it will all turn out fine.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am sorry, it does not require two wheels to turn in both directions because it is completely symmetrical,besides there would not be space enough for two mechanisms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor dauncey; Would you mind explaining that to a farm boy like me? I for one would like to know how that was done---------------------Sam

      Delete
  16. Bessler had to double the thickness of his drums when he went from the Draschwitz to making the Merseburg wheel. He had to do that to fit two one direction wheels inside of a single drum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err...that's NOT what Bessler said.

      "I had to do a lot of head scratching before I could get the mechanism properly adjusted" does NOT sound as simple as slapping a couple one ways together and calling it a day.

      Seems to me that "adjusting the mechanism" means "changing the SINGLE mechanism," or altering it in such a way that it behaves in a slightly different manner.

      This would explain how a one way wheel needed a rope to hold it down to make sure it didn't move, while a two way would just sit still all by itself when stopped.

      AND THEN...a slight push was all that was needed to get it going.

      So here's the problem...

      If you throw two one-ways together, you get total balance.
      And if you decide that a one way wheel moved in the opposite direction becomes itself a balanced flywheel to give the other the impetus, consider if the hybrid contraption is stopped. Will it stay still? No. Will a slight push in the other direction suddenly slam the impetus wheel into flywheel mode, and the balanced one into the impetus in the other direction? HA HA HA!!!

      I would absolutely LOVE to see that one made.
      Talk about impossible.

      No, I don't think Bessler did that, makes no sense at all.

      Delete
    2. Anon 02:17 wrote:

      "So here's the problem...

      If you throw two one-ways together, you get total balance."

      That's true which is why his Merseburg and Kassel two way wheels were stationary instead of self starting, but when Bessler gave one of their drums a push in either direction, whatever one of its two inside one way wheels was forced to counter rotate would then have special little latches that would grab hold of its levers and lock all of them up against their stops in the drum after the drum made one complete turn. When that happened that wheel's CoG went to the center of the axle and the drum was then driven by the overbalanced CoG of the other wheel.

      When Bessler wrote:

      "I had to do a lot of head scratching before I could get the mechanism properly adjusted"

      He was probably complaining about those latches on the levers of the Merseburg wheel's two inside one way wheels. They had to be very carefully adjusted so they would work reliably. It probably took him days to make they work right.

      Delete
  17. 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...