Sunday, 4 October 2020

Bessler Collins Gravity Wheel Part Two

 I'm adding some more drawings just to try to clarify what I've posted already in Part One.  I hope this helps although I know the drawing with both red and blue levers looks confusing!

I have added two green arrows to indicate the two mechanisms which actually provide action rather than a response to rotation.  In the first picture the green arrow shows the direction of motion generated by the red lever in the mechanism at the six o'clock radius.

Note that the red initiator lever shows two weights, this is to demonstrate its two positions before and after its action lever. Those with only one weight show their position at that time and position.

The second picture shows what happens at the same time to the mechanism ahead of the six o’clock mechanism. The blue lever is lifted by a cord attached to the short arm of the red lever.











































Obviously there are levers not shown which propel the blue lever anticlockwise, and the cord which lifts the blue lever in the leading mechanism up sharply.  Below you can see the pattern suggested for the cords and pulleys.  This same design appears in two of the drawings in Das Tri.


I will post details of the mechanism by which red lever pushes the blue lever horizontally anticlockwise in  my next post.

JC                                   Copyright © 2020 John Collins.

78 comments:

  1. Thanks for sharing your attempts, John.

    I guess that your pulleys are not just for directing force in a suitable way at greater lengths, because it's not possible (or I don't know a way of doing that) 1 pound to fall from 4 feet to lift 4 pounds more than 1 foot merely by falling of a weight.

    I know your interpretation of Bessler's words is not straight forward, but I'm just letting you know that it is perfectly possible (and even proven with today's physics formulas) 1 pound to fall from 4 feet and lift up 4 pounds more than 1 foot without being on a wheel or having more weights in the mechanism. Just 2 weights in a 1:4 ratio.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess my explanation is still unclear, I really need to show the wheel. The red lever needs to fall 90 degrees to raise the blue one in the preceding segment up quickly. A 90 degree fall gives plenty of lift but it also has to push the blue lever within its own segment horizontally 30 degrees which wouldn't take too much out of it.

      JC

      Delete
  2. John, are you saying Bessler's "connectedness principle" is the method by which the dropping red lever uses a cord and pulley to raise the blue lever in the leading section?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not necessarily, I don't know for sure, but I think it is likely.

      JC

      Delete
  3. What happened to the red initiator lever in the sector between 4 and 5 in the second drawing? Did you forget to put it in?

    I don't like to be negative but I just made a quick and dirty sim model of your wheel by fixing all of its ten weights to a wheel at the approximate locations they would have if all four of the moving weights immediately swung themselves into those locations in that first drawing you uploaded. This model showed their COG was located below and only slightly to the left of the axle. When the sim wheel was released it had a small amount of torque but it made the wheel turn anticlockwise!

    Of course that was just a quick test of a static model. We really need a test using a more accurately made dynamic model which has the levers swinging in their actual order to see how this design will perform. However I'm reasonably sure that if it is a runner it will have very low torque.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your quick and dirty test is certainly not good news anon 19:37. Let's hope it's very inaccurate because if it's not then it will mean that the counterclockwise torque of the ten weights will only increase as the wheel rotates through 36 degrees into the position shown in the No. 2 drawing. If that happens then this wheel can't possibly run. But as you say let's see what more accurate sims show. It's still too early to judge John's design based on a single approximate static model.

      jason

      Delete
    2. Some further things to think about and potentially factor into how we think a sim or real build might behave based on this concept as a thought experiment. Assuming for simplicity's sake that the backboard's mass and inertia has no material consequence to the wheel. What it takes it gives back equally. The same applies to the masses of the levers themselves and the pulleys and ropes, and any other mechanical leverage techniques not shown. They can have very small masses and be increased later if relevant.

      The red initiator driver lever falls in an arc determined by the lever radius from its pivoting position on the 6 o'clock radial. What happens in the thought experiment? Initially the lever has some horizontal component of movement then it is mostly vertical component. The relevance is how much GPE is it losing while falling 90 degrees? Initially not much GPE lost for arc distance, later, much greater GPE lost for arc travel to its stop position as its almost entirely vertical. Its job is to lift the associated blue load lever approximately 30 degrees anticlockwise against wheel rotation direction. This has only a short vertical climb component and is mostly horizontal distance. The secondary function through mechanical means currently unspecified is to raise almost vertically through about 30 degrees displacement clockwise the leading load blue lever. Overall two things could be considered. Does the red driver lose more GPE than both blue loads gain? Additionally does the GPE lost and gained profile match so that there is a potential or gradient to use? The red lever falls mostly horizontally at first but the leading load must raise almost vertically thru a greater vertical distance than is initially lost ect., iinm. The loads are pivoted at the CoR but their pulley attachments ect. will be someplace else and could create backtorque or be beneficial to rotation. Assuming these shifts can occur the wheel will have displaced the red and blue weights to the right of CoR affecting the COG. However when the red driver falls its torque contribution is reduced depending on speed. If it were in free fall it would be completely MIA until it hit its stop. That would mean temporary backtorque increase would be an issue. If however the driver GPE lost displacement is close to or more than the loads GPE gain required then the translation will happen much more slowly because there is little or no surplus of available GPE lost energy to work with i.e. to arrive with velocity and KE there must be a surplus of GPE to convert to acceleration and KE according to Mechanics and Newtonian Physics. The concept appears to require the leading load to be accelerated almost vertically upwards at a great speed which then presumably adds impact energy to the wheel frame assisting it to rotate clockwise and through a complete sector of 72 degrees to repeat.

      With more to come it is hard to know whether all relevant factors have been correctly considered and projected.

      Delete
    3. Anon 19:37 wrote "When the sim wheel was released it had a small amount of torque but it made the wheel turn anticlockwise!"

      Maybe John has the right design, but is mistaken about the direction it is supposed to turn in? Maybe it's supposed to turn counterclockwise instead of clockwise like he thinks?

      Delete
    4. Isn't Bessler's wheels supposed to have springs in them? Where are the springs?

      Delete
  4. Oops, I corrected the offending drawing and by mistake published the wrong one, I will correct that tomorrow. Thanks for the heads-up.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for doing the quick and dirty sim anon. 19.37. Without the correct connecting mechanism at the six o’clock radius the red lever in lifting the blue lever in the leading mechanism, will also lift its accompanying red lever. The six o’clock mechanism is designed to disconnect the actions of the blue lever from the red lever when it is being lifted vertically.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see you added that missing red lever to the 4/5 segment. I also used a quick graphical method on your second drawing showing the locations of the ten weights after the four shift to determine their center of gravity and I got the same result that anon 19:37 above mentioned he got. The center of gravity looks like its just below the axle and a little bit on the left side of the wheel. If this wheel is supposed to turn clockwise I would expect that center of gravity to be on the right side of the axle. Something's not right here.

      Delete
  6. John I could say a lot about your design but I find too many too many problems I wish you all good luck with that thing. maybe in the attempt of it running you might catch a glimpse of the principal but I'm not going to hold my breath. That design is to convoluted it is a tangled web of guessing!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for all your input guys. I think the best thing for me to do is to continue to finish my own version of the wheel and, as Stephen suggested, try to see if I’ve gone wrong and why. I was never happy about sharing my design without a PoP wheel, because I saw the reaction to KB’s design. Once I’ve finished I’ll post photos of it.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like you're doing a half disclosure which I guess is better than none at all. However not disclosing all of it will prevent accurate sims of it from being made which could determine once and for all if it's a runner or if you are just wasting your time and effort with a hopeless nonrunner or if it can somehow be made into a runner. It almost looks like you are so afraid of ultimate failure that you are stopping full disclosure now to prevent the making of any accurate sims which would force you to have face that possibility. I think you are making a mistake by not doing a full disclosure now as you promised to do.

      However those quick preliminary balance tests done here on your wheel are not encouraging. I suspect many are turned off by your wheel's use of pulleys and lack of springs which they've come to believe are necessary in some way. I also think most are not happy with it only having five mechanisms. They expect eight which of course increases the construction work by 60% over a wheel with only five.

      Maybe after you think it over for a while longer you'll finally show the rest of the design so it can be seriously analyzed. I wish you the best of luck no matter what your decision is.

      Delete
    2. Comparing the "Bessler Collins Gravity Wheel" to Ken B's wheel I think I much prefer Ken's. It only needs 8 levers instead of 10, all of its levers are coordinated with each other in some way, no troublesome pulley systems needed as in John's wheel which we never got to see anyway, and the frosting on the cake is Ken already has a working sim that keeps its cog on the descending side as the wheel turns. It's really too bad about John's wheel but it's starting to look like it's just another no runner.

      I saw the various sims Wubbly over at BW forum just made for John's wheel and even uploaded as a video of to youtube and they were all no runners just as those far easier to make quick and dirty preliminary sims made for here showed they might be.

      I think if John had made the effort years ago to learn how to use wm2d and then used it to analyze his wheel he would have quickly realized he was heading in the wrong direction and moved to a new one that might have produced results. Maybe this disaster will finally convince him it's time to start simming like many others are doing.

      Delete
    3. Anon 22:44 you forgot to mention that Ken's wheel unlike John's uses springs and plenty of them. In fact it can't work without them.

      Delete
  8. John, I think you did release enough for everyone to digest and ponder. As you said, you should now stop posting and work on the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, anon. 16.39.

      I will still release photos and hopefully a video of it when it’s finished.

      JC

      Delete
  9. After reading the above I feel like a little kid who someone offered a tasty ice cream cone to. Then after I got a few licks of it he suddenly grabbed it away from me and ran off with it. My reaction? WHAAAA...!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean its like when your mamma lays out a new pair of underpants for you, and you find a big skid mark from a previous day :)

      Delete
    2. Try using a little imagination and see if you can figure out how all the components work together to create a movement. Experience the Aha moment yourself.

      Nice one Anon 20:44. I get the impression a lot of visitors here sit in the corner with their poopy pants on waiting for their mommy to come change them.

      Delete
    3. I will post more details of the design once I’ve produced them in ms paint. Wubbly’s sims on the BW forum are encouraging but obviously lack some additional information..

      At 75 I take a bit longer but all the details will be posted eventually.

      JC

      Delete
    4. There is nothing definitive about the presence of springs and I don’t see any need for them and there are no suggestions in any of Bessler’s clues. The reason for five mechanisms is be because two of them work together in sequence and there was always an implied doubt about how many thumps he head in Fischer von Erlach’s mind.

      What I’ve described is clearly indicated in Bessler’s clues which will be detailed in excruciating detail and available in the near future.

      JC

      Delete
    5. Nice to read that you have changed your mind and decided to make a full disclosure after all. Without that those trying to sim your wheel for you will have to make guesses about how you want it to work and that would only waste their time.

      As far as the springs in Bessler's wheels are concerned I think you are disregarding a very important written clue about their presence. It occurs in the note to MT 18 which reads:

      "This is the previous spring model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. In the meantime, the principle should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place."

      That "principle" Bessler refers to is shown by a springy piece of metal that is flexed out of its normal shape by the weight attached to its end and then near the top of the turning wheel can expand and quickly raise the weight toward the rim.

      Many believe that when Bessler wrote in MT that he would talk about something "at the appropriate place" that was a reference to the end of the book where he originally intended to place the drawings showing the details of his working wheel design. If he was going to talk about springs there that would seem to strongly indicate that they were actually used in his wheels.

      There's also the incident that happened during the reinstallation of the weights at the official testing of the Merseburg wheel. Something, probably a lever, slipped out of Bessler's hand and the witnesses reported that a loud sound of a spring could be heard. This also strongly suggests that his wheels did use springs.

      If they did use springs and your design doesn't that would seem to indicate that you still don't have Bessler's design and it probably won't be a runner if his design was the only way to achieve pm. Let's hope that the springs, like the axle pendulums, weren't critical for a wheel to work.

      Delete
    6. I thought, after I’d written that comment, that someone would bring up the subject of springs. It is a fair comment, but as I have never given much consideration to MT, other than the very important Toys page, I have tended to ignore the mentions about springs which are there.

      My personal opinion is that the comment about the sound of springs during the Merseburg test has nothing to do with the working of the mechanism, so much as damping down the sound and smoothing the operation. Bessler also said in answer to a question did he use springs, he said, “not in the way you mean”, which suggests a use such as I have considered, to help launch the fall of the red lever ASAP.

      JC

      Delete
    7. "Bessler also said in answer to a question did he use springs, he said, 'not in the way you mean'..."

      That phrase "not in the way you mean..." tells me that he was not using the kind of spiral mainsprings that were used to power the wind up clock movements of his era and were the same kind of springs that Wagner used in his fake pm wheel. It was Bessler's way of saying that his wheels did not contain any similar wind up clockwork type movements to power them. The clear implication is that he used some other type of spring.

      I have no doubt that his wheels did use springs. You think they helped launch the fall of the red levers in your wheel. If the simming now being done on your springless wheel over on the bw forum fails to show it's a runner, hopefully they can start to add in some springs to see if they help matters.

      Delete
    8. "...not in the way you mean..."

      Comparisons were made between Bessler's wheel and a clock. "Not in the way you mean" could imply Bessler was saying his wheel was not pushed by a wound main spring. That's about all you can read into I think. I agree with John, springs were either used to cushion and quiet the landing of weights, or to help propel levers faster than they would normally fall due to just gravity.

      Delete
    9. In Ken's version of Bessler's wheels the springs are needed to perfectly counter balance a wheel's 9 o'clock lever and also apply torques to the four levers leading it which are also connected to the 9 o'clock lever by cords and help to lift it. That's what allows the 9 o'clock lever to swing up so fast to maintain the drum's overbalance as that lever's pivot moves between 9 o'clock and 10:30 in a rotating drum.

      I think that loud spring noise at the Merseburg wheel test happened because Bessler had pulled one of the wheel's 9 o'clock wooden levers down to begin to attach weights to its end after the wheel had been moved to a new set of axle supports and the two stretched springs attached to it violently slapped it back up and against the lever's stop in the drum when it slipped out of his hand. That sudden contraction of the springs would have made them vibrate wildly and make a loud "TWANNNGGG..." sound.

      Those springs in the Merseburg wheel must have really been stiff because the sound of the impact was so loud it startled everyone present. I would love to know what the conversation in the room was after that little mishap.

      Delete
  10. I will definitely wait with a simulation until all details of the principle are published. Nevertheless, I think I've already understood what makes this principle special in its core. 1 pair of weights act with a kind of "one-way-connection" and the fall of the weight with 90° movement range must be used as efficiently as possible to move the other weight 30° against the direction of the wheel's rotation. If this doesn't happen, too much counter-torque could be generated. The need for 5 pairs of weights is not yet clear to me, which could change with further details.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5 weight pairs may simply be used because that is how many can fit within the wheel.

      Delete
  11. The red lever drop that raises the 2 blue levers is a simple weight shift. I don't see how any mechanical advantage could come from that, but until John releases details about the connectivity, I will keep an open mind. What concerns me is the leading red lever that has moved on and I suppose is free do drop as the wheel turns. That lever dropped a, nearly from the axle to the hub, and that is a significant amount of potential energy to lose in comparison to the two blue weights that were lived. That means any gain by the blue weights have to provide energy to raise the leading red lever weight until is resets. I think that is just to much to overcome, unless there is some magic happening with the connectivity that has not been shown yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the shifting of those four levers and their attached end weights during 72 degrees of wheel rotation does not cause the CoG of all of the ten weights to rise at least as fast as the rotating wheel is trying to lower it, then John's wheel can't stay overbalanced and it won't run. It's really as simple as that.

      I wish that Wubbly over at the BW forum had indicated in his sims of John's wheel where its "System Center of Mass" was located as the wheel, either motor driven or free coasting, was turning. That, I think, will tell us all we need to know about whether or not John's wheel is a possible solution to the Bessler wheel mystery. That bit of information has already been approximately provided by those crude quick and dirty sims of his wheel made earlier in this blog. Why didn't Wubbly's sims provide it???

      Delete
  12. Because Wubbly has manners, and knowledge. John hasn't yet indicated to him the ideal connectivity positions as he sees them, which could affect timing of shifts of Driver and Loads, thus effecting system COG position down stream. Wubbly has asked for them and JC has promised to provide them shortly. ATM the aim appears to optimize the correct timing of shifts from JC's further input. When that is achieved it is very easy to turn on and display System CoM. If JC thinks it would help and wants to preempt things like you and see it now before the development and fine tuning process is worked thru from John's clues then he need just ask Wubbly for it to be tuned on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like some really bad news for John over on the BW forum. Wubbly there has pointed out that at the speeds Bessler's wheels were turning, those red "initiator" levers would become pinned to a wheel's rim by centrifugal forces and wouldn't reset themselves at the top of the wheel's ascending side. Without that constant resetting, the wheel's mechanics will become disabled unless it was running a speeds much less than those measured for Bessler's wheels.

      This looks like an objection that JC won't be able to get around. It could actually be the end of the "Bessler Collins' Gravity Wheel" as far as being a solution to the Bessler wheel mystery is concerned.

      RIP BCGW...

      Delete
    2. Ken B's Besslerwheel sim and Kerry Waenga's Besslerwheel both would be disabled by levers being pinned to the outside above a low RPM since both had levers at or near the perimeter by the same reasoning. Ken's sim model on YouTube turned very slowly and was not shown accelerating.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure if Ken's wheel would be as sensitive to CF as John's is. CF would tend to help raise the weighted levers back toward the rim as they passed the drum's 9:00 position on their way to the drum's descending side. The biggest problem I see from CF in his wheel is that lever moving between 6:00 and 9:00. It will start to feel the effects of CF interfering with its smooth swinging toward the axle and into the position it has at 9:00 and that will begin moving the COG of all of the eight weights closer to a point right below the axle center. But, I think it will happen at higher wheel speeds than John's wheel would. When it does happen the drum will just keep turning at that speed. The question is will that speed be above 60 rpm?

      As I understand it, the wheel in Ken's youtube was turning very quickly and he purposely slowed down the video to allow the lever motions to be more easily studied. The video wheel model is of Bessler's 3 foot diameter prototype wheel which could have reached over 60 rpm, but I doubt if Ken's sim was running at that high a speed. If it had been, then the COG marker would have almost right under the axle center. Like John's wheel, Ken's wheel needs to be simmed by someone who knows how to make accurate sims. I'm sure in time that will happen especially if John's wheel gets knocked out of the race.

      jason

      Delete
    4. Jason, WM2D sims run in real time even if at high accuracy. Calculating where accuracy is required can take a lot longer. KB's sim was 36 inches diameter. It was rotating very slowly in the video. So slowly that the mass levers were not affected in any visible way by any Centrifugal Forces acting on them to advance or retard them from these accelerations. That tells me the sim was turned by motor at very low and constant RPM for demonstration purposes only. He could have easily shown metrics for time and angular velocity to be unambiguous. But then we would have seen the sim RPM waxing and waning and not constant as per the sim.

      Delete
    5. @Anon 08:44

      FAWK Ken's wm2d model could have just been turning at say a steady 30 rpm's due to air drag acting on it instead of 60+ rpm's and he made it look like it was running a lot slower by adjusting the frame rate on the avi file he would have made from its exported dxf file. I suspect this because if you look at his video in slow motion you can see the motion is not smooth but proceeds in small noticeable jumps.

      As far as no effects of centrifugal force being obvious, that could be due to the weights in the wheel having low mass like maybe only a few ounces. He does not tell us the masses of the weights because he apparently wants people to buy his book to find that information out. Ok, like all authors he's trying to sell books and I can understand that and his not wanting to give everything away for free. I can't believe he would deliberately fake the wheel model because that would become obvious just as soon as someone else tried to sim or build it.

      I have to admit that the more I look at his wheel video the more convinced I become that he could have finally found Bessler's secret as incredible as that might sound. His video actually produces a kind of hypnotic effect on a viewer! He claims it took him about two thousand sims to finally find it and that every part in the wheel is exactly described by clues he found in the DT portraits. Ordinarily I'd say that is impossible.

      I'm no expert on the portraits or any other hidden clues in the Bessler literature except for the most obvious ones everyone knows about and his wheel seems to fit all of those. What can I say? Time and accurate sims will eventually tell if he's got a runner or not. If he doesn't then he wasted a tremendous amount of time and effort with his sims and in writing his "magnum opus" on Bessler's wheels. That would really be a shame, imo.

      Delete
    6. It would be a shame as you say. But stranger things have happened in this crazy field of study. Let's hope he is not deluding himself and us. Trust is earned not given. I usually try not to believe anything except on Sundays. All other times empirical evidence is cash and failing that sim metrics. Look nothing up my sleeves.

      Delete
    7. When you think about it everyone who ever tried to build a pm machine and failed was delusional in one way or another. They either didn't understand mechanics and physics or they understood them but did not believe them. With Bessler's drawings all sorts of little odd things pop out that look like they had to be intentional but they could all just be in the eyes of the beholder. They're similar to the ink blot tests psychologists use on their clients. To one person a blot make look like a butterfly but to another it may look like a cat's head or some other shape they are familiar with.

      Most likely both John and Ken are delusional when it comes to Bessler's wheels and, if so, nothing useful will ever come from their research. But other pm seekers should not feel superior to them because they will ultimately realize they're all on the same sinking ship with John and Ken. A century from now if anybody is still interested in the history of mankind's search for pm, they may find John and Ken's names mentioned somewhere. Most likely they'll be in a book that tries to tell its readers what a waste of time it is to look for pm and makes fun of guys like John and Ken. That could be all that posterity has in store for them despite their years of dedication to the subject and trying to find some real answers for a change.

      Delete
    8. I disagree with you 11:20.
      There is no faith in you that there is something extraordinary to discover and, what is worse, you want to kill hope, which you cannot take because you are powerless. You fear that someone will rediscover the secret of PM and your imposed and learned world will collapse.
      You have no sense of the history of time. Rest assured it has started. John has shared the design and reserved the design because he has a feeling.

      Delete
    9. Anon 11:20 you speak with no authority. To my knowledge neither you nor anyone else has proven PM is not possible. Saying so it not proof. You are just another fool that does not belong on this site.

      Delete
    10. For 15:13
      What is authority? Who gave you the right to segregate people?
      When the time for solution comes, you will definitely change your mind, but will you apologize? I doubt it.

      Delete
  13. Members at Besslerwheel.com have been calculating Centripetal Acceleration and Cp forces of objects in rotation for years. And comparing them to radius of center of mass location and projected revolutions per minute. It is well known and talked about that as wheel angular velocity increases at 12 o'clock position the Cp's are directly opposed (cancelling) to Weight Force and a mass then has no tendency to be centre seeking. Equally at 6 o'clock Cp's and Weight Force are aligned in direction downwards and begin to reinforce. At a calculable rpm weight Force is doubled and is how 'g' forces are calculated. What one taketh the other gives in equal amount in a constant speed circulating environment. If this is Bessler's wheel design then he would also have left clues about how to negate or use the cancelling or reinforcing forces of rotation to not adversely effect the wheel greatly. And that may have something to do with the pulley and pivot connection positions being discussed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The dropping of the red lever that raises the two blue levers will be assisted by CF. The movement of the weights on the blue levers are pretty much along the periphery of the wheel and they will not be affected by CF.

      However, the leading red lever that already dropped will be pinned by CF to the outer rim. So not only some extra force need to come from somewhere to overcome the overbalance to the ascending side due to the position of the red weight, but some extra force will be needed to pull it inward. Yikes.

      Delete
  14. I just read on BW.com that John now thinks that the dropping red lever at the 6pm position, may have to not only raise the two blue levers, but also the leading red lever that already passed the 6pm position. It should not be too hard to sim these simple movements since they would take place "in a flash" as Bessler stated. That means you could treat the wheel as stationary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can we stop suggesting that both blue levers have to be raised? The first blue lever is supposed to be moved sideways, horizontally, not up, not lifted. Ok? The red lever in the leading section was shown to be potentially being pushed against the rim, but as it should normally be almost vertical at this point, I think it might be possible to hold it in against CF. Just a suggestion.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I’ve just had an amazing idea and it’s so simple! But let me look into it before I say any more. I will share it but I would like to verify it first.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Lol! You can always tell someone who is totally obsessed with pm. Just as soon as one of his designs gets shot down because of a failed test or sim, he's already coming up with another one to try! JC will probably stop actually working on his wheel at this point and simply keep firing new design changes over to Wubbly at bwf to sim. If (actually when) it gets shot down, JC will have a new one to try before the end of the day! He won't even waste time anymore looking for clues in the drawings to justify them. He'll just want that runner no matter what! Maybe he'll be good for another half dozen tries before he finally burns out and gives up...for a while at least. As the title of the Chick Rains song says "Dreams Die Hard". The hardest to kill dream of all is the dream of achieving pm.

      Delete
    4. I may indeed be obsessed with pm, but I’m not stupid! I find your assumptions based on nothing but what you would do in a similar situation to be offensive, inaccurate, sarcastic and devoid of any empathy, understanding or common decency. Don’t bother to respond.

      JC

      Delete
    5. John, I am the original author of the 17:35 post, and I am not Anon 20:18. I am trying to provide constructive feedback. So here's more.

      1) The blue lever and weight in the same section as the dropping red lever and weight, does move horizontally as you said, but it also moves upward, and not just a little.

      2) After the red lever and weight drop, the lever will not be vertical until the wheel rotates approximately 72 degrees. It will not be close to its reset position for another 72 degrees. That weight is hanging at a greater radius than its counterpart on the opposite side of the wheel and a significant amount of energy is going to be need to shift it into the reset position.

      Sorry if this angers you, it is not my intention. No one wants your wheel to be a runner more than me.

      Delete
  15. I suggest you turn of Anonymous comments. You may find members to post less frequently, but don't expect any less in terms of constructive criticism. If you want NO feedback, then disable posting all together.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Agree with you John. Seems SoS's and Mr LS might have had their prophecies and predictions turn sour. What is evident to all is that you are following your trail from the DT drawings and MT Toy's Page to some outcome. And that there is a lot of goodwill both here and over at BW.com forum to assist you put meat on the bones. Those same people are initially following your lead for authenticity purposes, and later may freelance future sim tweaks IF and when required to keep momentum going. Hopefully resulting a working sim of a gravity driven free energy wheel. It is a process which is underway and usually met with good humour from those giving their time and effort to the cause. And imo demonstrates the value of an open form and discussion.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you fletch and thank you to the others who have commented. Sometimes little things irritate me, and just occasionally I bite back, for which I apologise. I’ve always accepted criticism and arguments against my speculations, but I think the realisation that I’m not there yet has really got to me this time! I do welcome feedback, and I’ve tolerated some fairly unpleasant comments in the past without over reacting. So please continue to criticise, argue and provide feedback. In the meantime I will return to Bessler’s clues to see what and where I went wrong. I will offer some alternatives as soon as I have worked out what might work. I do have an idea for which I need to thank those facts which were actually criticism of my design. The features which were highlighted as being wrong might just steer me in the right direction, so thanks guys. Ever the optimist!

      JC

      Delete
    2. Dear Sir John.

      Your last comment of 22:19 is the number 55, and for the first time you are consciously admitting that you are not there yet.
      I will not wait for your further publications, I will provide my opinion now.
      I was never satisfied that the wheel should only turn, I always considered it a huge mistake.
      The wheel must give power, and I remember it well.
      You use lifting in your design "Sam Bessler clearly stated" falling weights ", but did he say it all, he also said that you don't have to lift it.
      The fact that Bessler drew the ropes did it for a specific purpose, and you used it in the project. You followed Bessler's suggestion.
      The question is: did you find a way or just what's up his sleeve?
      If you've found what he has in store, it certainly won't be enough to give you useful power.
      You wrote that the design is difficult to define.
      If you understand the principle of operation, then you understand everything and it is easy to do it, if you do not know how it works, you do not know anything.
      Your idea for publication is based on the assumption that asymmetry could cause PM traffic.
      In my opinion, the operation of breaking symmetry is a mistake, because the asymmetry you create cannot be repeated in the same pattern without loss. even taking advantage of the system's retroactive effects.
      Many times it seemed to me that I found it, but after careful examination it turned out only mirages. Bessler's hints fit almost any design.
      Your project will have no power, although it may run for a while. Unfortunately, this is not what I strive for.
      I know you hope for success, that's good. This feeling is very familiar to me both ways.
      If God allows, I will write.

      Best regards.

      Delete
    3. Looks like anon 20:18's comment really hit one of John's major nerves. I think that anon is the same guy who keeps heckling John and ending his comments with MLS's often quoted "A leopard doesn't change his spots" line. The best way to handle hecklers is to just ignore them and not let one know that he rattled you with his comment. They hate being ignored. He seems to think that being obsessed with pm is a bad thing. Actually, it is a required trait! The more tries one makes to find pm, the higher the probability of success just like the more lottery tickets one buys the higher the probability he'll hit the jackpot. But no guarantee of course.

      Was Bessler obsessed? Damn straight he was and good thing too or he never would have found his runner. Actually, when I think of obsession I immediately think of Ken B. In about a year's time he made the most number of posts on bwf ever. Then he cranks out two THOUSAND sims! Then he produces the largest book ever written on pm or Bessler. Obsessed? If they gave a Nobel Prize for obsession, he'd certainly qualify for one! Of course, it all makes sense when you realize that he has an ego the size of Mount Everest!


      Anonymous and PROUD of it!

      Delete
    4. You write about it very humorous and cheerful 00:03 thank you.
      You can be proud of it, I support.

      Delete
    5. I haven't commented here in a while because my specialty is numerology and not mechanics and there hasn't been much in need of numerological analysis on this blog in the last several months. But since Fetcher at time 22:08 mentioned me, "SoS", I guess I should say something.

      He wrote: "Seems SoS's and Mr LS might have had their prophecies and predictions turn sour."

      I'm glad he used the word "seems". I agree that the "Mr. Lepard Spots 2029 Prophecy" has now been proven to be totally false by JC's recent disclosure. I was sure it eventually would be and that has happened just as I expected it would. However, my own 2029 Prophecy is actually, imo, NOW in the process of being slowly fulfilled.

      In that prophecy I made last year I said that in this present year of 2020 there would be two competing designs for Bessler's wheel because of the two 0's in this year that look like wheels. And there ARE now two competing designs which are those of JC and KB. However, I also said that in the next year, 2021, there would only be one remaining design that would still be considered to most likely be the one Bessler used. I said that because the year 2021 only has one 0 in it.

      I also stated last year that I was convinced that the one remaining candidate for Bessler's wheel would be the one KB found. Earlier this year I mentioned that decision was made because KB's design resembles the one in MT 13 and, imo, Bessler wouldn't have attached that particular numerologically and religiously very important number of 13 to that design unless it was very special in some way. I said it was special because most likely it was the design that eventually led to the final successful design Bessler found.

      Now for the rest of my 2029 prophecy which is the most important and perhaps most difficult part to believe. I'm convinced that it will be JC who will make the first working reproduction of a Bessler wheel but he will do that using the design KB found and he will have it completed and running well before the year 2029. As a result of this, both he and KB will be nominated for and receive Nobel Prizes.

      I'm sure most reading this will dismiss my 2029 prophecy as total nonsense at this time and I cannot blame them much for that. However, by the end of next year, 2021, I am very confident that everyone then will realize that my prophecy IS well on its way to being fulfilled.

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
    6. Sorry SoS but I'm not a believer in prophecies. Prophets tend to brag about their few right predictions while conveniently ignoring all of their wrong ones.

      But I do agree with you on one thing. MT13 is a very important wheel design and I am convinced that Bessler kept modifying it until he finally made it work.

      Delete
    7. SoS thinks John will eventually build Ken's wheel? I don't want to say it's impossible, but John is definitely not there yet. He's still focusing on the Bessler wheel drawings for his inspirations. I read somewhere that Ken focuses almost exclusively on the two DT portraits and claims they contain all of the secrets of Bessler's wheels.

      When I look at those portraits all I see is a jumble of random items that only look decorative to me. But then again I haven't spent years studying them. Maybe he's right. I do find it interesting that the only image we have of Bessler is attached to those two portraits. Maybe he did that to make sure his picture would forever be associated with the hidden clues in those portraits?

      Delete
    8. I think most psychics, mediums, gurus, and prophets are full of sh*t. But I'm not necessarily saying SoS is one of them so no offense intended (he could be but I don't know that for a fact at this time). But I do think there is a sort of weird logic to SoS's prediction.

      If one makes the huge assumption that Ken B has actually cracked the secret of Bessler's wheels, then whoever uses what he's found to construct a working replica of a Bessler wheel should find himself and his creation quickly becoming the center of attention for a lot of the world's scientists. That person would become famous and not just for now but maybe for centuries to come. Scientists might be talking about his success a thousand years from now and long after they've forgotten about guys like Einstein!

      However, there can only be one person who will produce the FIRST working duplicate of one of Bessler's wheels. That opportunity won't ever come along again after the feat is done by someone.

      If John C is content with just being credited with rounding up some of the Bessler literature and having English translations made of it, then he probably won't be interested in attempting the construction of the Ken B wheel. But, if he's looking for a lot more fame for a lot longer, then it would seem that can only be achieved by him finally making a working wheel even if it's not Ken's version.

      I have bookmarked this blog and will be following it regularly from now on looking to see where all of this is heading. It's really a very odd and interesting blog with hands on inventors, keyboard simmers, philosophers, mystics, trolls, and occasional nuts and skeptics all contributing their opinions from time to time. Well done!

      Delete
    9. If you look through the MT drawings carefully you will notice something most interesting. MT 13 is the only drawing there which shows us a smiling face! The crescent weight is the smiling mouth, the axle is the nose, and the two letter C's are the eyes. It's very obvious especially after you've been told it's there.

      Why that smiling face in that one drawing? I think it was Bessler's way of telling everyone that the design he eventually derived from that particular wheel made him very happy. Now what kind of a wheel would have made Bessler very happy? A working perpetual one of course!

      A numerological analysis of the letters and other elements in MT 13 I did earlier this year indicates that Bessler also put a lot of religious symbolism into it. He was very religious and attributed his discovery of pm to the divine intervention of God. Basically it was a miracle as far as Bessler was concerned. He wouldn't have put all that religious symbolism into that one drawing unless it showed a VERY important design.

      Maybe every serious Bessler pm wheel seeker out there should take a good long look at MT 13 and ask himself if his wheel looks anything like it and is some variation of it. If not, then maybe that's why he's not making any serious progress with his wheel?

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
    10. I also agree that mt 13 is an important drawing in his maschinen tractate book. I found this line in the note for mt 13:

      "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."

      This is the only mt drawing which Bessler describes as "...would be very good for running if..."

      I can easily imagine him trying to figure out a way to get the upper ascending side levers of mt 13 to lift up their weights by using rope connections from them to the other levers in the wheel. Those rope connections would be that connected principle that he referred to once.

      Delete
  17. Whether SoS is right or wrong for the longer term, JC should start learning a sim program now to work up his ideas and to share files and development with KB. They can be learned sufficiently in a week to start building wheels and testing ideas. Wubbly has shown what can be done and his renderings are first class as teaching aids.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Following wubbly’s sim revelation showing the red levers pinned against the wheel edge, I commented like this on BW forum.

    “The cf effect has to be overcome or negated. The old image of an ice skater comes to mind. Out stretched arms and spinning slowly, but when brought in, against cf, spinning speeds up.

    I always knew that my interpretations of the clues might be wrong but I believed and still do, that the elements I identified were correct.

    So we have 90 degree falls, 30 degree lifts, 10 weighted levers, ten matching weights, 5 mechanisms, 10 pulleys, 5 lengths of cord and always 2 adjacent mechanisms working together. All we have to do is find a way to assemble them as Bessler did.

    Thank you all for your comments so far, really very much appreciated. I’ve been doing this for too long on my own.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The cf effect has to be overcome or negated."

      The only real way to do that is to keep the mass of the weights low, the speed of the wheel low, the diameter of the wheel low, or some combination of these. Actually, even if your current wheel or some modification of it could only run perpetually at 1 rpm, it would still be a breakthrough although most likely not what Bessler had.

      Delete
    2. @Anon 08:32. You said that decreasing the diameter of the wheel, which is always twice its radius r, will decrease the centrifugal force acting on a weight, CF. But that's not correct since the formula for CF is:

      CF = (m v²)/r

      For a given mass of the weight, m, and its velocity of travel around a wheel's axle, v, one must increase the radius of the wheel, r, to decrease the CF acting on the weight. Note that CF will be in Newtons when m is in kilograms, v is in meters per second, and r is in meters.

      Delete
    3. Anon 09:37, you are not simplifying the equation. velocity (v) is equal to the radius (r) times the angular velocity (w). Therefore:

      CF = rw^2

      So you can see that as the radius decreases, so does the CF.

      Delete
    4. 09:37's CF equation is valid as long as one assumes that the mass's linear velocity remains constant as the radius is changed. Your CF equation is valid as long as one assumes that the linear velocity also changes at the same rate as the radius changes in order to keep the angular velocity constant. I think I prefer anon 09:37's equation for CF that assumes a constant linear velocity for the mass as radius changes. The concept of angular velocity in units of radians per second can be confusing for people who aren't into math and physics.

      Delete
    5. Sims automatically calculate those changes for you so you don't have to work the math and then display the result and knock-ons frame by frame.

      Delete
    6. And they don't make mistakes or leave things out.

      Delete
    7. https://gist.github.com/anonymous/c980d4bd729c2a9b7126cdff897a5805#file-working-model-2d-full-md

      Delete
    8. The download link on that page no longer works. The makers of WM2D must have been scrubbing the web to remove any free downloads of cracked versions of their software they could find. They want to make sure you pay through the nose for it now!

      Delete
    9. Download a free version of Algodoo and build your sims in that program. Post the file or pictures and metrics of the sim at BW.com if you want to discuss it. Someone who has a legitimate version of WM2D may then recreate it if it sparks some debate.

      Delete
  19. Oops, left out the mass.

    CF = mrw^2

    ReplyDelete
  20. https://soaneemrana.org/onewebmedia/MECHANICS%20OF%20FLIGHT%20BY%20A.C%20KERMODE.pdf

    Mechanics of Flight - A C Kermode

    Page 22 Centripetal Force
    to
    Page 24 Mass rotating in a vertical circle - diagrams and examples using the formula.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dudes,
    Am I being too simplistic?
    The wheel speeds up, CF kicks in, the mechanisms stop working, the wheel slows down to the point where the mechanisms can work again, etc. etc.
    You end up with a pulsed rotation.
    What to do ?
    Stick two large pendulum on the sides to govern the speed.

    STEVO

    ReplyDelete

Johann Bessler’s Non-Stop Gravity Enabled Device.

I know I’ve been banging on about this for years, but here I go again! I am continually surprised that some people are still arguing about t...