Friday, 16 October 2020

Update for October 2020

 Decided to post this little update just to draw a line under the last blog which was getting longer and longer and looooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggeeerr.......But I love lots of comments so keep them coming!

I think some people will think I’m depressed or dejected after wubbly's sim showed me my design would fail, but far from it.  No matter how confident of success a design may seem, in ones own mind, there is always the possibility that it will fail.  You can’t build prototypes for 50 years and not meet failure on an almost weekly basis, and get used to it.  I was always good at acrostic crosswords and the harder the better, it’s no fun if it’s too easy and I think that underlies the attraction in trying to find the solution to Bessler’s wheel.

Although I have a clear idea in my mind and on paper, of the direction my build should go, I have been co opted, (is that the right word?) by my wise and wonderful better half, to remove a thirty year old fitted wardrobe and repair and repaint the wall prior to assembling a new wardrobe to take its place.  She has a list of small jobs (she said, “it’ll only take a day or two to get these done!”) to finish before I can return to my wheel.  The onus is on me to hurry it up.

My design was perhaps more complex than it needed to be so I’m keeping that in mind as I build the new wardrobe, and my mind is awhirl with new ideas as I work. 

I should thank wubbly twice over, because not only did his sim reveal my error, but it gave me fresh impetus to solve this long standing puzzle. Pun?

For several years I have believed that Bessler’s logo, often used as his signature, held a simple rough copy of the design within his wheels.  You can see it at the top of this page. 

JC

170 comments:

  1. John, you are absolutely right about there being no reason to be down in the dumps over yet another failure. The only way to never fail is to never do anything.
    I honestly believe that for many people, when someone finds the solution, it will be a very depressing moment, once it has sunk in all that the solution implies. Not only for the non believers, but those who spent years seeking the answer too.
    Keep at it, someone will do it one day.
    RH46

    ReplyDelete
  2. I saw on the previous blog (not the longest which, IIRC, was last year and over 200 comments!) that you decided after getting wm2d that it was "not right for you" and you don't intend to use it. I think that's a big mistake. One's first look at wm2d's workspace can be intimidating, but with only a few hours of practice that will fade and you will understand how to use all of its sidebar tools. That sim program can save you a LOT of wasted time in the shop. Once you start using it you won't be going back to hands on only building again...kind of like never going back to a dial up internet connection after you try a high speed cable connection!

    I thought like you did when I first saw wm2d up close. It's really very simple once you overcome your initial fearful impression of it and actually start using it. You've got a long cold winter ahead of you during which you will be cooped up inside your house hiding from the cold and the corona virus. It's the perfect time to master wm2d so you will be ready to start seriously using it when the spring thaw comes or even much earlier.

    RH46 above seems to think that when "the" solution to Bessler's wheels comes along it will depress those who spent years seeking the answer. I doubt if that will happen. "The" solution which actually shows the secret principle his wheels used (known only to Bessler and God!) will be exactly what many need to finally get their Bessler and even non-Bessler type pm wheels running.

    Most importantly, when "the" solution arrives it will change the discussions on blogs like this and the various free energy website forums worldwide. Instead of endlessly wondering and philosophizing about HOW Bessler MIGHT have done it, that will be in the past and everyone will be talking about the version of Bessler's wheel that he is currently building. Every once in a while someone will announce that he's got his Bessler or non-Bessler wheel running and will post a link to a youtube video showing it. It should be a joyous time for pm chasers everywhere as the dumbfounded scientists trip all over themselves trying to explain how Bessler's wheels could possibly be working.

    I do not dread that day but welcome it! Those who do dread it will be those who for some quirky psychological reason actually enjoy not finding success. Maybe they get some weird satisfaction out of keeping themselves deluded that they are on the verge of a big successful breakthrough "any day now" and that delusion can only be maintained as long as a real solution never comes along? Yes, I can see how that might depress those few. But for the vast majority that solution will provide them with much happiness as they spend less time dreaming up possible solutions and more time building WORKING wheels!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven’t decided against sims, I’m just not in a hurry while I have wheel to actually build, but I will download a copy as soon as practical. I like what you’ve written anon, 16.32, and I will spend some time getting to grips with WM2D.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I think the initial response will be very plaisant. It is when that wears off, i myself will have to admit that i spent over 35 years believing it to be possible yet unable to find the solution, the solution that is so simple a blind man should have bean able to see it.
      The non believers can all kid themselves that, had they not made the mistake of believing it to be impossible, they would have solved the problem in a week.
      I think we will all deserve a kick up the backside.
      Ronald Hood 46

      Delete
  3. John wrote: "She has a list of small jobs (she said, “it’ll only take a day or two to get these done!”) to finish before I can return to my wheel."

    One of the biggest hindrances to a pm chaser's progress is a spouse who perceives his "hobby" as really being an excuse to avoid doing necessary home repairs and yard work. They generally see it as a complete waste of time and feel the need to point that out whenever some problem in need of fixing pops up and catches their attention. That's when we'll hear things like "If you have enough time to waste with that stupid wheel of yours, then you have enough time to mow the grass! Get moving before it gets knee deep!"

    They've actually realized that for many pm chaser's that's one of the many benefits of their hobby...getting away from the many time and energy draining homeowner obligations so they can find a few hours per day of blissful peace and quiet in the seclusion of their no females allowed workshops! Thank God for pm wheel research!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are a happily married pm chaser like myself, anon. 17.42. You recognised my comments as familiar experiences many of us share.

      JC

      Delete
  4. Hi John,
    You said the blue lever in section 1, in the un-shifted position, starts at 18 degrees from the vertical. I am wondering if you found this angle from actual clues in AP or MT, or maybe from hand measurements on Bessler’s illustrations? Could the angle could be 21 degrees? If so, I will elaborate further, but I DON’T want spend time going in the wrong direction or taking any more of your valuable time if 18 degrees is where real clues led you. Please let me know. Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my opinion the number was 18 degrees but it could have been 15, as long as the fall was 90 degrees, 18 is the basic pentagonal number and all angles are multiples of 18, so you have 18, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108. Note that 5 times 18 equals 90.

      I’m always interested in other people’s ideas, do you want to comment on 21 degrees?

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, it's nothing ground shaking. It has to do with the range of angles where the wheel is overbalanced. I'm not sure if you plotted out the overbalance but it is interesting how the 72degree rotation between sections, the 30degree shifts in blue lever weights, and the 18degree initial offset of the blue lever produces an almost perfect symmetry of overbalance (both above and below the horizontal on the descending side). To me that suggests you are on the right track in terms of the blue lever positions and movements. The red lever drop is still something I am thinking about. A 21degree offset (instead of 18) would lead to perfect symmetry, although probably not needed, but nice.

      It might be easier to relay what I am saying by posting a picture and text in your thread on bw.com .

      zoelra

      Delete
    3. I should also say that the shifting of the blue levers in this way yields the maximum amount of overbalance. This is not so obvious considering the blue lever weights are near the bottom of the wheel.

      zoelra

      Delete
    4. I know you are interested in pentagonal numbers, but in one of your drawings, a pentagram is laid over the AP wheel (a 3 spoked wheel). A local church near my house uses that symbol to represent the trinity. So 21 (or 2+1 = 3) could be a way for Bessler to interject this into the wheel. Just a thought.

      Delete
    5. So more food for thought. If 21degrees is the correct offset, this creates a range of 36degrees above the horizontal, and 36degrees below the horizontal, for the overbalance. 36 is significant because 3x6=18, the base pentagonal number.

      zoelra

      Delete
    6. Ok I worded my previous post a bit poorly. I should have said if 21degrees is the correct offset, this creates an overbalance range from 36degrees above the horizontal, to 36degrees below the horizontal. Not only perfect symmetry, but 36+36=72, the angle of one side of the pentagon. It seems like that 21degree offset fits nicely.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for your interesting comments zoelra. I have seen a drawing a long time ago with something like the three spoke wheel with a pentagon on it.

      JC

      Delete
  5. I have been studying Bessler's wheel for years now I have my own idea how it works give you a hint Bessler's illustration called a child's toy IT WAS NEVER HIDDEN IN HIS TECHNICAL DRAWINGS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you’re referring to the Toys page, MT 138, 139, 140 and 141.

      JC

      Delete
  6. Since you invited comments...

    First, keep up the good work John.

    Next...there IS a question and the end of all that follows...

    What has kept me interested in this (and following your activities) for the last 10 years is primarily the words and actions of Karl (Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel). The written accounts of other notable observers (all with a lot to lose if they were later revealed to have been fooled) are also impressive, but Karl is the witness I can't explain away.

    Correct me if I am wrong about any of the following: History remembers Karl as a man of integrity (I think I read somewhere that he often brokered negotiations among other rulers because they all trusted him). I think it’s safe to say that history also remembers Karl as a man of a least average intelligence and one with an interested in science and mechanics.
    If, after having seen the inner workings of Bessler's wheel, Karl had commented that it was sophisticated and of "genius" design, I would have dismissed Karl as having been deceived by a complex machine that was no more than an elaborate clock winding down slowly. Instead, Karl said it was stunningly simple, and that he was surprised that no one had thought of it before. He also commented that a "carpenter's apprentice" could have constructed it. (A superfluous statement that adds emphasis by the fact it was even offered. Also, Karl MUST have observed it turning, and later have given thought to HOW this simple design worked without violating simple rules of mechanics).

    All this fits with Bessler's own (often stated) concern that when people saw how simple it was, he would lose out on economic rights in it. If Bessler was actually a fraud and never intended to show the inner workings, why not go all out and claim the design to be a masterpiece of engineering? A final thought along this line...Bessler refused to enter into a legal agreement that he would be paid AFTER revealing his design. Instead, he said he would take payment FIRST, and if then shown to be fraud people could take back the money AND HIS HEAD! A wise man with a brilliant but simple design would realize that the burden of pursuing payment AFTER would be difficult and maybe impossible.

    Here are my questions to you John. I am not an expert in any of this. For all I know, it’s possible that you are on the right track and that your recent design just needs a minor tweak. But I am VERY surprised that all of your research about clues and codes has led you to a design that seems FAR more than simple and easily constructed. Forget the skill level of a German apprentice 300 years ago. Do you think someone would describe your current design as "so simple" that it is “surprising no one has though of it before”? I would describe it as a very clever orchestration of levers and weights shifting in a precision manner. Last question..(for now)..what about the “Apologia” drawing? Where does it fit with your design? Of this drawing, Bessler said : “And still, you do not understand?”.

    There is no critisism in any of the above. Just genuine curiosity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon 20:26 Quality summary! Insightful observations! Worthy questions!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed I agree with anon, 21.49, a masterful summary, anon. 20.26.

      You are absolutely right, my design was too complex, and too complex for me to build! I got carried away with an idea and got too close to see where I’d gone wrong.

      I published my thoughts on the Apologia drawing on my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/apologia_wheel.html

      For me Bessler was instructing us to include a pentagram in the design. If you go to the link you can read my full interpretation of the drawing plus numerous other puzzling aspects of Bessler’s publications.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I forgot to add to my above comment, that the design I’m working on is very simple and should be much easier for me to complete. Sometimes I can be working on a design and I get diverted from my planned design by a sudden inspiration and I end up completely off track. This is what happened to me earlier this year, I should of stuck to my original design!

      JC

      Delete
    3. "...the design I’m working on is very simple and should be much easier for me to complete."

      And also much easier for Wubbly over a bwf to shoot down with a quick sim in case you cannot finish it and need some outside help again!

      Delete
  8. Anon 20:26 wrote to John: "But I am VERY surprised that all of your research about clues and codes has led you to a design that seems FAR more than simple and easily constructed."

    The two biggest objects to John's wheel being "it", imo, are the use of all those pulleys and having the levers cross next to each other inside a narrow drum as they swing about. John kept complaining about how parts were colliding and blocking each other's smooth movements. I think in the design Bessler used the parts would have been shifting far more smoothly. I think having the paths of parts' motions crossing each other is a mistake. No real need to discuss it any further since Wubbly's sim quickly laid it to rest in the heavily crowded failed wheel graveyard of history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be to quick to dismiss the design entirely. You need to break down the components to understand what is working and what is not.

      Delete
  9. Anon 20:26 said "Do you think someone would describe your current design as "so simple" that it is “surprising no one has thought of it before"?

    I would describe it as a very clever orchestration of levers and weights shifting in a precision manner."

    If we were to take a straw poll how many of us builders have like John tried various combinations of leverweights shifting other leverweights leading it, lagging it, or both, or in the same sector, via pulleys and ropes, levers etc?

    I would be astonished if no one else had, or very few, and so fit the prophetic words of Karl as "surprising no one has thought of it before".

    I think the particular PM concept is archetypal and far from atypical. Mt is full of such demonstrations.

    I have worked with it and had zero success. There was never any surplus of imbalance forces to propagate self-rotation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your wheel did not work because, like all of those in MT, it failed to keep the CoG of its weights on the descending side during wheel rotation. That is why all overbalanced wheels must fail with the sole exception of Bessler's wheels. I think the key to understanding how Bessler did it is figuring out exactly what his "Connectedness Principle" was. I'm convinced that it involved interconnecting the individual levers in a special way and it definitely involved ropes. Unless one can duplicate that he can forget about ever making a working reproduction of a Bessler wheel.

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
    2. John's interpretation of the BW did not fail because of the blue levers. I think they are spot on. I believe more discovery is needed on how the red levers (prime movers) operate.

      Delete
  10. Wubbly's sim of Johns wheel did not show it would not work solely because of Cf's. The Cf's test showed it would not work at moderate to high rpms because Cf's would inactivate it. This left the door ajar for it still being Bessler's wheel operating at very low rpms, with some Cf 'fix' enacted by Bessler as a proposition.

    However, W's sims showed it would not be a runner because there was no asymmetric torque, at ANY starting rpm or Angular Velocity it was given. The common Width for Height problem! And his sim showed this when he toggled OFF the motor turning the wheel at various rpms. Angular Velocity immediately declined and rpms dropped towards zero indicating the wheel tending to stationary and losing momentum and rotational energy very quickly. Before it completely stopped he then either toggled the motor ON again or, increased or decreased, the motor rpm with motor turned ON. Until turned OFF again and let coast and slow down.

    IOW's the combination of interconnected red levers and blue levers could produce some lifting and some positional torque from the lever shifts. But could not give a surplus of CW wheel torque to accelerate and maintain a self rotation. And if the sim CoM/CoG had been turned on so we could see it we would say that the system CoM/CoG did not stay on the descending side of the wheel long enough to provide the excess momentum required to be a runner.

    The questions are : can any combination of displacement find a sweet spot that turns it into a runner? - can a fix for the Cf's problem be found?

    If both problems can be solved in the same wheel then it could be said to potentially duplicate Bessler's wheels performances, if not actually being Bessler's PM Principle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every overbalanced wheel design I've seen does start out with its CoG on wheel's descending side. But, that is only at the start. As soon as the blasted thing starts to rotate, it's CoG will rotate right around the axle center until it reaches its equilibrium location right under the axle center. The angular momentum of the wheel will then keep rotating it and lifting the CoG onto the ascending side for a while. Then the process reverses itself and all that happens is that the CoG and the wheel oscillate one way and then the other way until they settle down and the CoG is right under the axle center and stays there. They used to call this "keeling" over on BW forum years ago but I don't see that word used anymore.

      Bessler's wheels were able to keep their CoG's on their ascending sides despite the rotation of the wheel. That means a CoG had to be constantly rising relative to the wheel as the wheel continued turning and tried to lower it. That resulted in the CoG remaining fixed in space relative to the floor under the wheel. The wheel would then accelerate because it felt a constant torque on it. But constantly raising the CoG required a constant expenditure of energy. If his wheels were not fakes with some sort of energy sources hidden inside of their drums or axles such as wound up springs or compressed air tanks, then what was that energy source?

      Delete
  11. Damn straight padre 3:41 ..

    keeling is still popular - like a keel on a yacht lowers its CoG.

    "Bessler's wheels were able to keep their CoG's on their -ascending- sides despite the rotation of the wheel."

    -descending- sides I should think.

    "then what was that energy source?"

    it didn't have one - you described it above [CoG displacement aka structural imbalance]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right you are anon 04:00! When I wrote "Bessler's wheels were able to keep their CoG's on their ascending sides despite the rotation of the wheel." I should have written they were able to keep their CoG's on their DESCENDING sides despite the rotation of a wheel. My bad...sorry. Thanks for pointing that out because I didn't notice it.

      Anon 03:41

      Delete
    2. Anon 04:00 wrote:

      "...then what was that energy source?...it didn't have one..."

      No! Bessler's wheels had to have an energy source of some kind unless they were creating energy out of nothing which is considered totally impossible and why at least 99% of all scientists dismiss pm as impossible nonsense. Yet, contrary to what JC occasionally claims, the energy could not have somehow been squeezed out of the Earth's gravity field because gravity is not supposed to have any energy of its own. That energy Bessler's wheels put out had to have come from something inside of a wheel.

      Delete
    3. There is a sort of way to extract energy from gravity that does not require a wheel. It does however require some special types of crystals. This video gives some information about the process:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4aH6T66qn8

      Delete
    4. I do indeed “ ...claim... the energy could ... have been squeezed out of the Earth's gravity field”, anon 06.55, because there is no other potential energy source. Yes, “ gravity is not supposed to have any energy of its own,” but it does make things fall and we do make use of that fact every day all over the world in hundreds of ways, so I firmly believe that gravity holds the answer.

      The first requirement is to cause imbalance in a wheel, which seeks equilibrium by rotating. We need to recreate the conditions of imbalance by the time the wheel has reached its point of balance again. It is for ever hunting the point of balance but the action of doing so creates more imbalance.

      Bessler described this exact situation, and there is no need to invoke some additional energy source.

      JC

      Delete
    5. Unfortunately, John, the official scientific view disagrees completely with you. Here's a quote from an article that deals with the idea of extracting energy from gravity and it starts right off by saying:

      "No, gravity can not be used as an infinite energy source. In fact, strictly speaking, gravity itself can not be used as an energy source at all. You are confusing forces with energy, which are very different things."

      You can read the full article here:

      https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/08/since-gravity-is-unlimited-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/

      Assuming that this article, written by a physicist, is correct, then Bessler's wheels HAD to have some other source of energy to power them.

      Delete
    6. Thank you, but that is old news and despite the “experts” assurances that it can’t be done, I’m equally assured that it can be done and Bessler did it. We will prove it.

      JC

      Delete
    7. I think that Anonymous 16 October 2020 at 16:32 above got it right when he wrote what will happen after the secret of Bessler's wheels is found:

      "It should be a joyous time for pm chasers everywhere as the dumbfounded scientists trip all over themselves trying to explain how Bessler's wheels could possibly be working."

      Delete
  12. For those who question and find the whole concept of excess torque, excess impetus, seeking and not finding balance, whilst remaining out of the center of gravity, and ask where does the energy come from, difficult ?

    Let's simplify and declutter by applying some black box thinking.

    There is a special mechanical arrangement contained in a black box, one for each sector of a wheel when installed, that maintains the above conditions. When the wheel is released if a one-directional wheel, and when given a push in either direction if a bi-directional wheel.

    We don't know what is inside the black box other than it is purely mechanical in origin. It interacts with the gravity field like other objects.

    Where does the energy come from ? It does not need an energy source because the black boxes keep the wheel in constant motion by keeping the wheel out of the center of gravity.

    The scientific community will say there must be an energy source and gravity force is conservative ! They can see the black boxes. They can see that when they are in the wheel the wheel accelerates to operational RPM, and can do Work. When they are removed the wheel is not a runner like any ordinary unbalanced wheel.

    Now it's easier to imagine gravity force as the gradient of potential that is exploited by the black box mechanics, to do Work! With no requirement to invoke mysterious or hitherto unknown energies as the Prime Mover.

    Hope that helps !

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was in agreement up to this line:

      "Where does the energy come from ? It does not need an energy source because the black boxes keep the wheel in constant motion by keeping the wheel out of the center of gravity."

      You seem to be ignoring the fact that "keeping the wheel out of the center of gravity" or overbalanced requires that its CoG be constantly raised as the wheel turns. That DOES require a constant expenditure of energy and that energy, according to established science, cannot be supplied by the Earth's gravity field. So, again, that brings us back to the question of what was supplying that extra needed energy to maintain the overbalance?

      Delete
  13. Anon 10:14 said .. "You seem to be ignoring the fact that "keeping the wheel out of the center of gravity" or overbalanced requires that its [CoG be constantly raised as the wheel turns].

    [That DOES require a constant expenditure of energy]"

    No .. it is your "belief" that it requires a constant expenditure of "energy" - the CoG will constantly be raised and lowered because the wheel is a closed loop system, restoring GPE each revolution. The special mechanical arrangements inside the black boxes ensure that is physically the innate and only outcome possible. I like to casually call it a mechanical 'workaround' or 'cheat', 'fix', etc. You can call it what you want !

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @-f

      It's not a "belief", it's a fact of physics. If a person is on a down escalator which is lowering his body vertically at the rate of, say, 1 foot per second, then in order to remain stationary with respect to the surrounding building, he must be start climbing those constantly downward moving stairs so that his body's rate of vertical ascent equals exactly 1 foot per second. That requires his body to constantly expend energy. This exact same principle must apply to any wheel that is to remain overbalanced as it turns. It must somehow be constantly and automatically shifting its internal mechanisms in such a way so that they keep raising their CoG and again that requires a constant expenditure of energy. If Bessler's wheels were not fakes being powered by windup clockwork mechanisms inside of their drums and gravity cannot supply the energy needed to keep raising their CoG's as they rotated, then where did that energy come from?

      Delete
    2. I agree with you anon 11:22. I think Bessler was well aware that the cog's of his turning wheels had to be constantly rising because he wrote this in AP (see page 357):

      "It’s no matter – I don’t wish to go into details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You {Wagner} can’t comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight about the point of application of a lever)."

      That "excess weight" that he says is caused to rise would have to be the cog of a wheel's weights that stayed on the descending side as the wheel rotated so the wheel could stay out of balance.

      Delete
    3. FWEIW, I'm fairly certain now that the **mechanizum** for Bessler's wheel only has one moving part; that's right, you guessed it, a pendulum. It's very simple; they swing out on the down side and back in on the up side. Why make such a big mystery out of it-----------------------------Sam

      Delete
    4. Ann 11:22 It is your "belief" because you have never seen a mechanical arrangement that is an exception to your belief. My objective to posting was to declutter the playpen that is our imagination and allow some of us to not always get funneled and sucked into rabbit holes. To keep eyes on the prize.

      It is my belief that Bessler found such a special and simple mechanical arrangement. Because Occam's Razor suggests it a strong possibility. Now many will think I've entered the twilight zone and that's their prerogative to think so. However since you can't answer the questions of how B's. wheels were runners with any greater aplomb than myself I'll leave it at that. It's a discussion within a discussion group of fringe science, and not a dictatorship. Free will to believe what you want still exists.

      Anon 11:58 I would take everything publicly said by B. with a grain of salt. You know the drill. Stick close to the truth and you don't have to remember which lie you told. Think for ourselves tho sometimes it's easier to let someone else tell us what to think (including B.)!

      @ Sam .. everyone has one theory or another. Whether its yours about pendulums or JC's about multi-levers etc, each has to be proven beyond a doubt against the backdrop of Width for Height arguments. And that ain't no easy thing to put to bed. Usually a real world build will do it and save a lot of hassle.

      -f

      Delete
    5. Fletcher, I guess you are right. However, the pendulums are well suited for the task at hand, namely how to return the weights back to 12:00-------------------SAM

      Delete
    6. fletcher wrote to anon 11:22: "However since you can't answer the questions of how B's. wheels were runners with any greater aplomb than myself I'll leave it at that."

      Maybe he can't but Ken B doesn't seem to have any problems answering questions about how Bessler's wheels worked. His design, aside from matching all of the clues we think we know about the wheels, is really very simple with only eight weights on levers. It's actually far simpler than John's recently failed design. Some don't like all of the cords it contains, but there really are only sixteen of them that are critically needed to coordinate its lever motions during wheel rotation. That must be the price that has to be paid to maintain overbalance during wheel rotation. In his MT Bessler shows us MT 14 that requires thirty cords to coordinate its levers yet he says that the design can be made to work. That's fourteen more cords than in Ken B's design. I'd rather use only sixteen cords in my wheel than thirty any day!

      Delete
    7. Sam .. I don't know whether you have been following Calloway's Pendulum design/concept over at bwf. He put a mighty effort into explaining and building his design. Still tweaking it I think. It incorporates some of what you speak about IINM.

      I hope Anon 20:26 (the author of the excellent summary and observations post early in the thread) asks his other questions, or digs a bit further. Rarely have I read such objective on-point writing. I get the feeling he has other gems to offer.

      -f

      Delete
    8. @ Anon 21:41 Here's a deal. You read his book and watch his sim. Gather together the parameters for his sim, such as spring lengths, spring constants used, accuracy used, dimensions, masses etc. Everything I need to reliably duplicate his sim in my program. I'll build it using those parameters and variables. An exact copy as best I can do. Except I'll probably change out the springs (which are massless elements and have no energy losses (i.e. unrealistic perfect springs)) for dampened spring elements. Also massless but have a dampening effect included which reflects how a real world spring behaves i.e. deformation and heat losses (realistic spring). N.B. when a sim 'works' with springs one of the first things you do is see how robust it is to ranges of variables (sensitivity), look for reasons for false positives etc. The very first thing you do is change out the generic perfect spring element for the realistic behaving dampened one to rule out false positives from them.

      I'll report back how it goes when I've done some testing on it.

      Excuse 1. I'm using an older program.

      Excuse 2. KB couldn't divulge all the variables and parameters that I require to make an accurate duplication attempt.

      etc etc.

      IMO his sim is the classic Width for Height Conundrum, and isn't a runner. In many ways imo it is like Kerry Waenga's spring assisted wheel which is also a non runner for the same reasons. Neither approach is a unique 'never before thought of' Karl benchmark, by any stretch. IMO.

      -f

      Delete
    9. P.S. polygons (the KB Y levers) can sometimes be problematic and with collisions can introduce surplus energy into the sim reactions. I'll probably change them out for rectangles pinned together that do the same job and have the same dimensions and mass etc.

      These are all well known things to check, and only the first cabs off the rank.

      -f

      Delete
    10. Fletcher, Callaway? I'll check on it. Also I might add, pendulums eliminate the problem of trading height with width, if I understand it correctly--------Sam.

      Delete
    11. @fletcher

      I did recently order a soft cover copy of Ken B's book just to see what all the talk is about but it hasn't been delivered yet. It wasn't cheap though and a new copy with shipping included cost over $30. Even his downloads from Amazon are now selling for $20 which is strange because they used to only be $10. Demand driving the price up? Well, if you're an author that's certainly good news.

      Anyway I've been told that he provides all of the specifications for all of the parts inside that simmed wheel he shows in his youtube video as well as the for all of Bessler's other larger wheels. He also gives instructions to do a hands on build of that video's sim wheel. When completed it will be 3 feet in diameter and only 4 inches thick!

      Someone also told me that he thinks Ken used one of the very earliest versions of wm2d for his sims when they were still sending out CD's with them to anyone who ordered one on their website for "evaluation purposes". No more though. You now have to call them and convince a salesperson that you are a serious user and might actually buy a copy before they will give you a free time limited trial download for review. Those who got those early free CD's with the program should consider themselves lucky.

      I'm really not too concerned about anything except if a design can keep its cog on the descending side as it rotates and the design Ken B found seems to be doing exactly that in his video. I'm sure that eventually the specifications of the parts in that wheel will surface on the web and we'll see others trying to sim it. If the majority of them show it's a runner, then it would seem that the mystery is finally solved. That would be nice. Not knowing how Bessler's wheels worked is like having an itch that you can't reach and scratch!

      Anon 21:41

      Delete
    12. Anon 00:28 "Someone also told me that he thinks Ken used one of the very earliest versions of wm2d for his sims"

      That's strange because when it was noted that pivots ect 'migrated' across objects and back in his YouTube runner sim he said it was a peculiarity of his NEW sim program.

      "I'm really not too concerned about anything except if a design can keep its cog on the descending side as it rotates"

      Hmmm - then you are not worried about whether it is a good or well made sim that people can rely on before spending time and money trying to replicate it with wood and iron, and sweat.

      Delete
    13. fletcher wrote: "Gather together the parameters for his sim, such as spring lengths, spring constants used, accuracy used, dimensions, masses etc. Everything I need to reliably duplicate his sim in my program. I'll build it using those parameters and variables. An exact copy as best I can do."

      That's certainly a generous offer you are making. If you don't want to invest in his books which are kind of pricey, then why not just contact Ken B by email? Maybe he could send you the specifications for the parts in his youtube wheel video and you could then try simming your own version of it independent of his? He would probably like to see as many others sim it as possible. But you have to be careful you don't make too many changes to it because if you do and it doesn't not run, then he can just say it's because of the changes you made. It can't hurt to ask him for that info.

      jason

      Delete
    14. I've already stated Jason that imo his configuration is a non runner. My offer was to the Anon to provide the full specs here at this blog. Then I would build a legitimate replication as best I can and in good faith.

      FWIW KB can send the sim file to any user who has WM who requests it. Or make it available on his website for downloading. Do you see his problem with this method of easy access ?

      Of course I will want to dig deep into his sim and thoroughly examine how he has built it, and does it do what his YT video purports it can do. And one of the first things I would want to do is swap out the generic spring elements for real life like dampened spring elements (which use up a bit of energy like a real spring does) and also the Y shaped Polygon Levers incase they are corrupting the sim performance. It's an easy swap out and I don't know why he didn't do it originally, since he is an experienced user. Look closely at his accuracy (iterations) settings, Euler (approximate fast) or Kutta-Merson (accurate). And I'd add a System Kinetic Energy equation which should measure an increase in System KE (& Momentum) as the wheel accelerates from a standing start (with no motor or torque forces added - faked motion). And if these changes to make it more realistic and reliable make it a non runner that I believe it to be if built legitimately then so be it.

      What are the chances that he makes it available on his website (rhetorical) ?

      -f

      Delete
    15. I found this reply by Ken B to someone else who wanted the files for his youtube wheel video:

      "Yes, I believe in "peer review" as long as it is objective review. But, to tell you the truth, ________, I'm still not convinced that you are a person that would fairly and objectively evaluate any information I sent you because you automatically consider it "impossible" that you could be wrong that, therefore, everything I've found must be some big mistake. So far, you have dismissed my explanations about how Bessler's wheels worked while constantly trying to reinsert your own and even claimed that I "know" the design I present is unworkable which suggests that I am purposely committing fraud by publishing the design! Nothing, however, could be further from the truth!"

      I can see why he would want to avoid sharing his files for the design with strangers on the internet. Many of them might "evaluate the design" by just running it for their amusement and would only be wasting his time. Others might say they evaluated it when they really didn't and then claim it was hoaxed nonrunner in an effort to sabotage his efforts to promote the design. No one who is trying to promote something wants a lot phony negative reviews of it.

      I tend to agree that the approach he's using of just making the details of the the design available through his book is probably for the best. That will tend to motivate the most skilled simmers try to make sims of it. Then as they begin to report their results, we can see what the consensus say.

      If I were you, as Jason suggested I'd try contacting Ken via email. He may still remember you from when he was active on BW forum years ago and might give you the information you'd need to get started making your own sim of the design. I wouldn't start off, however, by telling him you're sure his sim is a no good or has been hoaxed by him. If you do something like that he might not answer you at all! If you don't want to do that then it looks like you'll have to purchase a download of his book and work off of its illustrations to make your sim.

      Delete
    16. Ken's actually playing a very clever little game here which I'm surprised nobody has realized yet. By not releasing his own sims for his wheel design, he can always claim that they are accurate and show pm while saying anyone else's sim that does not work must have been inaccurately made or the simmer is lying! The only way to prove that Ken's sim must be in error or fraudulent is if there are many independently made and accurate other sims that all show his wheel does not work. If there are only two to three of those other sims that don't work, then he can always claim that the sample is not big enough to be considered reliable. Only if maybe ten sims all made by different simmers all showed his wheel design does not work then his claim that he had the only correct one would be shown to be false. But what are the chances of ten other people making accurate sims of his wheel design? Probably zero chance. Thus, it's really impossible to disprove Ken's wheel design no matter what someone else's sim says!

      Never underestimate KB. Like a good magician he has a lot of tricks up his sleeves. This is only one of them!


      Anonymous and PROUD of it!

      Delete
    17. Dead on the money AAPOI - and why I won't be privately contacting him, for any reason. I actually have zero interest in replicating his sim from specs. I called likely B.S. on it long ago because of too many red flags as far as I'm concerned. Both in sim presentation and his behaviour. And I'm less than interested in being a pawn to boost his ratings and sell books. If ever HIS sim becomes available for download I'd be surprised.

      -f

      Delete
    18. I've read a lot of negative things here about Ken B. But I also have to consider his claim that he made about two thousand sims before he found Bessler's runner. It's possible he could have lied about that of course but if he didn't then I'm sure that by the time he reached sim number 2,000 he would certainly know if his sims were accurate or not.

      Some think he must have hoaxed his youtube video. But I don't see any real evidence of that. I can't believe he'd hoax a sim just to sell books about a hoaxed design that doesn't work. Why bother because no one ever gets rich off of niche market type books anyway. I don't think he would have published the design unless he actually did have working sims for it.

      We have to remember that Bessler, who we're all convinced had 100% genuine pm wheels, was also accused of hoaxing everything he built and even wrote his books to make his hoaxing sound more credible. He also never revealed his design unless you count the dozens of previously unknown clues Ken B claims he's found in the DT portraits.

      Bessler did not openly disclose because he wanted to get rich off of his wheel design. Ken B is not sending out sim files to everyone because he apparently wants people to make their own sims so they will know for a fact that they are not hoaxed and can see for themselves that they are runners assuming they've accurately simmed the parts in the wheel.

      This is a complicated situation but eventually it will be resolved. I think when it is Ken B's wheel design will be shown to be real.

      Delete
    19. I don't need no more sims to convince me he's got a runner. All you got to do is look at his video to know its for real. It matches all the clues we got for the Bessler's wheel. If you think its a hoax run by a motor fine. But then explain how it keeps its cg on the going down side when it turns. You can't explain that? That's because he's got a real runner. I will build it but 3 foot is too small for me. I will make a 6 foot one instead. I will get it done by early next year God willing.

      Delete
    20. Ken B disappeared down his personal rabbit hole 16 years ago and never escaped from it. What you are witnessing through his various sock puppets is his desperate attempt to salvage something from it. Without providing anything concrete as proof of his theories. You're not in Kansas anymore Alice!

      Delete
    21. Ken does NOT have a runner.

      He has not built a working wheel.

      He has not released a SIM for analysis and verification.

      His wheel does not meet any Bessler clues I am aware of, such as the weights rising in a flash.

      He does have an animated home movie showing a wheel that barely moves. If that is what you consider proof of a working wheel, then I have a handful of beans you might be interested in.

      Delete
    22. Whether there are ten sims showing Ken B's wheel works or ten showing it does not work is really irrelevant. If he or others build models of it, claim they all work, and put videos of them on youtube is also irrelevant just as would be ten sims by others showing it does not work. Any clues he or anyone else thinks he sees in the Bessler books is also irrelevant. All of the pro and con debating about Ken's wheel or anyone else's wheel anywhere on the internet is equally irrelevant. So what would be relevant?

      The ONLY thing that will actually be relevant is if someone builds a pm wheel and then hands it over to a panel of PhD professors of engineering and physics at some reputable university who then test the wheel the way THEY want to test it and after that are willing to sign a statement saying that the wheel does work. IOW they have to be willing to stake their reputations on endorsing the wheel. It would be like the modern equivalent of that certificate Karl gave Bessler in 1718.

      Where does Ken B's wheel fit in? At a minimum he has provided us with a unique wheel design that can help get Bessler pm wheel chasers thinking in new directions. And who knows? Maybe it will eventually prove to be "the" solution everyone claims to want or at least a step in the right direction. I respect the effort he made in finding his wheel and presenting it even if his method of doing so is not to everyone's liking.

      We shouldn't forget that John C. played the waiting game with everyone for years before he finally disclosed his wheel design which unfortunately was just another nonrunner. Maybe years from now Ken B will finally release his wheel's sim files? But he has published enough details for those interested in the design to try making their own sims now. I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually happens. Ken B doesn't seem to be in any rush though.

      Delete
    23. I think some people will accept Ken's wheel as "the" solution whether it's proved or not. Others like anon 05:36 suggests will only accept it after a panel of university prof's say its a runner. The average person will probably say that the design might be "it" but he wants to see some more sims not made by Ken and preferably a real build. I'm one of those.

      jason

      Delete
    24. anon 05:26 wrote "At a minimum he has provided us with a unique wheel design..."

      How do we know that it actually is "unique"? Has anybody checked any of the old pm machine patents to see if any look like KB's wheel? For all we know someone might have gotten a similar design patented in the 19th century that has already been shown to be a nonrunner.

      Delete
    25. Anon 05:26 is correct at many levels. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", to plagiarize Carl Sagan.

      i.e. an extraordinary claim as one that is directly contradicted by a massive amount of existing evidence.

      The burden of proof is with the claimant.

      The business model : KB is only partly interested in solving Bessler's wheel mystery. If he wanted to prove his claim beyond a doubt then he would have organized and completed a POP build pre-release of his book. As Anon said he seems to have plenty of time and appears in no rush. He has monetized his theory (a deserving return on his investment of time and intellectual input as he sees it) and hopes that enough acolytes and skeptics will be inspired to build it for him. And as the buzz grows on forums and such asking where have I gone wrong, it just won't run, build a cache of perpetual debate and speculation (and ad revenue) in his wheel until the details of his claim are forgotten in the mists of time. His plan assumes that no legitimate contender arises from the ashes to compete with him so that his plan continues to have legs.

      And should his wheel design eventually morph into a runner by others free time and efforts that would be a bonus and cement his place in history as the modern genius inventor of gravity PM wheels!

      Buyer Beware!

      Delete
    26. If I'd spent half a century trying to solve Bessler's wheel and made two thousand sims looking for it, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed let alone write an eight hundred page book on the subject! He didn't keep going and build a POP and then set up a factory to manufacture them and make them available to all of humanity to power their homes and automobiles and stop Climate Change? How thoughtless of him! Lol! Imo, he's done more than enough already to "cement his place in history" especially if what he found IS the design Bessler used.

      He's not Superman guys. Like most of us he's probably another aging pm chaser and he used up his last drop of energy doing what he did. No, it's not perfect. Nothing in life is. It's now up to others to try and expand on what he's found. Actually, I like the idea of him not having also built a POP. That leaves it to someone else to do and that someone else will go down in history as the first person to make a working reproduction of a Bessler wheel. Ken B's left some fame for someone else to scoop up. I give him credit for not wanting to grab it all for himself.

      Delete
    27. Come to think of it, Ken B is just like lots of other harmless souls who have shared their theories, concepts, and designs over the years at bw forum, and JC and some of his followers here on this blog. He did write a great tome and said his sim was a runner so I guess he's different.

      Delete
    28. If Wubbly made a simulation that was a runner and wrote a book verifying the design from Besslers clues he'd found I'd buy it in a heart beat. He knows his mechanics and physics and simulations.

      Delete
    29. Anon 20:18 wrote: "Ken B disappeared down his personal rabbit hole 16 years ago and never escaped from it."

      But maybe he found the secret of Bessler's wheels down that rabbit hole and has finally crawled back out to share it with us!

      Delete
  14. In my opinion, we can better understand the BW's energy source only after a successful build...
    It has something to do with angular momentum and inertia... the ascending weights are able to quickly cross over the zenith or tipping point due to above reason before friction or gravity could act on the weights... thanks to the unique designing that Bessler cleverly employed...
    A heavy moving object is very difficult to stop suddenly... Sir Newton's first law... Extra energy comes from the inertia of the fast moving weights... The weights have to move fast by swinging to rotate the wheel...
    BW internal design or arrangement of weights is very simple but it requires a very clever mind to visualize the same... Karl was right and so was Bessler...
    The recent designs put out by JC sir and Ken is nowhere near the mark... Sorry about it...
    We often forget the fact about the wheel's simplicity during build... There's no point in seeking help from sim... The core Idea has to occur in mind and further evolve by deep imagination... AI or Simulations won't be a help in this case...
    The weight of the weights is crucial... The entire concept depends on gravity so the weights have to be a bit heavy... If a person swings fast he can easily flip over or go over the top... So swinging action is also a key player... BW is actually not as mysterical as is perceived... It is just that our present approach is not correct...

    Good day...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SK wrote: "The recent designs put out by JC sir and Ken is nowhere near the mark..."

      We all eagerly await to see what design YOU will put out, SK. I'm sure we will all be amazed at its simplicity!

      Delete
  15. Recently, I was allowed the privilege of watching a butterfly emerging from its coccoon, it was one of the most marvelous things I have ever seen!! After drying his wings off for a bit.......... he just flew off!! Now, if you are a believer in a GOD, and I am, then it is extremely difficult for me to believe that with all the exact perfection of this world that GOD did not give us a wormhole for us to find a way to provide all of our energy needs with the power of gravity. I keep coming back to a simple teeter totter and only have it touch the wheel on the rising side... period it is always the rising side that cancels out all my good work that is being done on the descending side

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's because the rising side is grabbing all of the GPE lost by your descending side so there is none left over to do any external work. You need to figure out how to have the rising side rise without grabbing so much GPE from the descending side. Impossible? Well that must have been exactly what was happening inside the drums of Bessler's wheels.

      Think of them as made up of four teeter totters with a common fulcrum that were in rotation about the fulcrum or axle. The descending parts were always in the descending half of the drum and the ascending parts were always in the ascending half of the drum.

      All you have to do is figure out how to make the ascending side of a teeter tooter rise by gaining less GPE than it will lose when it descends. Physics says it's impossible to do that. Bessler says it IS possible. I go with Bessler on this!

      Delete
  16. AA 21:58, I think you have described the problem correctly. At the risk of repeating myself, this problem can be remedied by the use of pendulums. They are capable of returning the weights back up to the top, trust me------------------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,
    I've just realized what the "ears" on Bessler's logo remind me of, the catch on a flintlock rifle. Or have I been watching too many repeats of Hawkeye ?

    STEVO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I know what you mean Stevo, and I know Bessler was familiar with guns, but.......?🤔

      JC

      Delete
    2. Bessler's logo has always reminded me of a mouse's face. You can see it's beady eyes, its nose, its two big ears, and the outward curls could be its front legs or even whiskers. House mice were a big problem in Bessler's day and everyone had a house cat to keep them under control. He mentions a cat catching mice in his AP poem and some say there are tiny mice hidden in his DT portraits.

      If this is correct, then why Bessler's obsession with mice? Maybe because some thought his small early wheels had trained animals, like mice or rats, running around inside them to make them turn and his logo was his way of mocking their false belief? Maybe because Bessler saw himself as like a little mouse creeping around and hoping that some crumbs would fall off the rich people's dinner tables to feed him which was like him getting money from them for his invention? Maybe he had a pet mouse as a child that he played with and loved? We'll probably never know for sure.

      Delete
    3. At the very least I smell a rat. There seams to be far more interest in mice, flintlock rifles, and Behrendt's unworkable device, then how Bessler's wheel might have worked---------------------------Sam

      Delete
    4. Hi Sam,
      If you include the spring, my idea only has 3 parts per mechanism, but it fits so many clues, broken columns, children's toy,flail,shadow boxer, guns firing, crabs,bows twanging,the Apologia Wheel,the Toys Page, etc,etc.

      STEVO

      Delete
    5. P.S.
      It also includes a pendulum.

      STEVO

      Delete
    6. Declaring a wheel "unworkable" might give one a quick feeling of having superior knowledge, but it's only a delusion unless one can explain, in detail, WHY the device is unworkable. That's very difficult to do without having an accurate sim to make reference to.

      As for those mice someone mentioned in the DT portraits, I think I found one of them!

      Get yourself a HIGH resolution image of that first DT portrait and take a good close look at it. Look at the upper left corner of the book on the table in front of Bessler that is resting on the skull. Now take a look at the nose hole in the skull. It's actually a little MOUSE! You can see it's two large ears, it's eyes, it's snout, and what looks like its two front paws hanging out in front of it. The mouse looks like he's getting pinched between the corner of the book and the skull and is struggling to crawl out before he gets crushed.

      What does this hard to see symbol mean?

      The skull is a symbol for death and the most famous death in history was that of Jesus. It took place at the "ninth hour" of daylight which, counting from sunrise at 6 am, means 3 pm in the afternoon. Thus, the skull represents the 3 o'clock position of one of the drums of Bessler's wheels. The book represents a lever as its pivot reaches the turning drum's 3 o'clock position.

      Bessler is telling us here that the lever, at the drum's 3 o'clock position is ALMOST in contact with a stop inside of the drum. There was, at that position, just a little bit of separation between the lever and stop. How small was that space? So small that a little mouse would have to struggle to squeeze out from the gap between the two.

      This is a little clue in the first DT portrait that most have seen for years and never noticed. I only found it by accident. It makes one wonder how many other clues there are in the two portraits that no one ever noticed before. Beware of anyone who confidently declares the two portraits as containing no clues. They are wrong!

      Delete
    7. STEVO!! Yes; I remember you, you were forced into a hospital, for virus duty. If pendulums act like pendulums all the way around, they won't do spit! As you probably know they have to lock,( temp.), to the wheel on the down side, then release at the bottom. I.E., go back to being pendulums.
      Anyway, I found a way to flip them out and up. The big problem I'm having now is they want to swing backwards on the up side, which screws every thing up. Can't seam to resolve it, but not for the lack of trying.

      Please stay safe------------------------Sam

      Delete
    8. Not forced into duty, but not shying away.

      You're right about the pendulum, at 6 O'clock the swing back will reset the weight, at 12 O'clock the "tottering " action will trigger it, I think that's what the stampers are used for, to fractionally stall the wheel, but let the upside down topple over under it's own momentum. The movement required would only be a few inches, so when resting on the sides, won't upset the balance too much, any small difference will be overcome by the weight moved.
      Don't let the pendulum swing out, use it to make a small movement force out a larger weight. 1pound lifting ( moving ) 4 pounds.

      STEVO
      PS, going to bed now, work tomorrow.
      ����

      Delete
    9. Oops!
      That's upside down pendulum topple over.
      STEVO

      Delete
    10. STEVO, I think I see what you are doing. Does the spring act like a toggle? Then the pend. shifts the weight back and forth / up and down. Hmmm? Maybe; not sure, have to try it to see what happens---------------------------Sam

      Delete
    11. Wow! Thanks for your mouse clue revelation, anon 21:53. Yes, I do see him exactly where you say he is in the first DT portrait and he does look like he's being squeezed and is trying to escape by clawing his way out from between the book and the skull. I wonder if Ken noticed that mouse clue and mentions it in his book? If not, then you've made a genuine original discovery. Nice job.

      I also decided to take another look at Ken's youtube wheel video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nP7KY6_EAM) and right after it starts when that radius line on the wheel passing through the 3:00 lever's pivot is perfectly horizontal, you will notice that there is a very small gap between the end of the lever and its stop attached to the drum. Anon, whether you realize it or not, you may just have provided some additional evidence to support Ken's wheel design as being "the" one Bessler used. This just seems like too much of a coincidence to be one. Your analysis of that clue is spot on, imo.

      If you accidentally find any more clues then please do share them with us!

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
    12. Yes, I do see that little critter in the first portrait! I'll be damned, there definitely is a little mouse there. I've probably looked at that portrait a thousand times and under a strong magnifying glass and I never noticed that mouse before. Absolutely amazing.

      This is one of the reasons I love his blog. I learn something interesting here everyday about Bessler and his wheels. Thanks anon 21:53. You have the eyes of an eagle!

      Delete
    13. In case anyone doesn't have one of John's reprints of DT yet and doesn't know what all of this mouse talk is about, here's a link to the first DT portrait in a copy of DT kept in a university library. Keep left clicking that little + sign in the circle button on the right side with your cursor to enlarge it to the maximum and then pull the image over to the right to see the mouse caught between the book and skull. You can plainly see his two little front paws hanging out.

      http://objects.library.uu.nl/reader/viewer.php?obj=1874-206158&pagenum=1&lan=en

      Delete
    14. For Fuck Sake - delete all Ken B related posts John !!!

      He is a monster !!!

      It's not a mouse you twerp - it's a shrew.

      Delete
    15. I don't think it's a shrew because the ears are too big. But it's definitely not the nose hole in a skull. It's there for a reason. Bessler was trying to say something with it and I do consider anon 21:53's interpretation a good one. Here's a close up photo of a shrew. Notice how small the ears are. This one has his eyes closed. He must have been bothered by the light.

      https://cottagelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/shutterstock_648811543-1200x800.jpg

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
    16. Anon 8:11 See the Large-Eared Gray Shrew or Elephant Shrew (large ears).

      There is a reason - Bessler commedy - the book portrays Edward De Vere's Taming The Shrew.

      And other vacuous distractions for airheads.

      Delete
  18. But......
    I have a cunning plan involving a similar device.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I FINALLY found KARL'S testimony in Das Triumph.: begins on page 192; very impressive and convincing !! This gives us all a real boost John, Thanks!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Richard, I should have given you a link to it, but I was very busy and not really concentrating, glad you found it.
      JC

      Delete
    2. OMG - this blog has gone to the mices!

      Delete
    3. Maybe we should be making mouse traps---------------------------Sam

      Delete
    4. Maybe Bessler got the idea for that mouse clue as he wrote DT because he remembered that once, as he was building one of his bigger wheels, he found that a little mouse had crawled up into its open wooden framework during the night and got trapped inside of the drum! Bessler was using various edible things like olive oil and tallow as lubes in his wheels. Maybe a hungry little mouse found the places which he had just lubed up and was licking any excess off for a quick meal?

      I can just imagine what would have happened if Bessler's house cat tried to crawl up inside the drum during the night to get to a mouse there while the mouse kept climbing up higher to get out of the cat's reach. At some point the top heavy drum, if it was not tied down to the floor, would have started rotating and then when the top was near the floor, the mouse would have jumped off and ran like hell for his mouse hole somewhere! The cat, however, would have had a very nice little ride in the drum until it finally settled down and he could climb out of it again.

      jason

      Delete
  20. I’ve tried to be open minded and reconsider Ken’s clues and the post above here about the ‘mouse’ in Bessler’s portrait, and yes, I can just about make out a mouse head - or a Labrador’s head, and if I turn it upside down I can just about see a donkey’s head. This is like a Rorschach test, you can make anything out of a very vague shape, it depends on what you’re looking for. Bessler’s clues were subtle but not that subtle. If that is a mouse, where is the cat and the dog? I

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I finally finished reading Ken B's huge Bessler book about a week ago and he does mention and show a mouse that he found in the second DT portrait (actually it's hidden in one of the German text letters under the portrait part). He makes no mention of that mouse in the first portrait though. Anon 21:53 has made a genuine discovery and Ken would probably be proud (or envious!) of him. It's nice that after all of these years new clues are still surfacing. It's like the surprises Bessler has for us never end!

      Delete
    2. I shan’t mention this again, but the clues themselves are so vague and KB’s interpretations of them only intelligible to him. His explanations are based on what? There is no way of knowing what he based his interpretations on. The whole edifice of 800 plus pages is nothing but a mystery tour through the imaginary world of Ken, and its conclusions will vanish like a puff of smoke in a slight breeze.

      JC

      Delete
    3. I think you are grossly mischaracterizing and trying to minimize Ken's Bessler research. He basically says and, imo, successfully demonstrates that Bessler used a very simple alphanumerical code to conceal the details of his wheels in the two DT portraits.

      Bessler wasn't concealing that information for future wheel builders to find and use in reproducing one of his wheels although he knew and hinted that could happen someday. Their main purpose was so that Bessler could point out the exact specifications of the parts in his wheel in the event that a contemporary rival inventor appeared with the same design. Bessler was apparently deathly afraid of losing priority to the design and the historical credit for finding it.

      I have very carefully read Ken's book and studied the last almost third that covers the clues in the portraits. While Bessler uses the same alphanumeric code in both of the portraits, he slightly varies how he uses it in both portraits and even within the same portrait to further confuse any readers of DT who might study the portraits looking for the hidden information. Ken has, imo, successfully managed to unravel the various ways Bessler applies the code in both portraits. The result was that he was able to extract the exact specifications for all of the parts used in Bessler's 3 foot diameter prototype which is what is shown in his youtube video. I think that anyone who casually dismisses that wheel design is making a very big mistake because it is the exact design that Bessler himself describes with the hidden information in his portraits.

      If one assumes that there is only one design that can produce a perpetual motion wheel (Ken, btw, says in chapter 3 that he does not believe Bessler's wheels were actually perpetual!), then not pursuing that exact design he found will mean that one can never find a wheel design that will work. So far, that wheel in Ken's youtube video is the only one that has appeared whose cog actually remains out of balance as it rotates. That is not something that should be overlooked, imo. It is a very important breakthrough in Bessler research.

      Delete
    4. I said I would not mention it again, meaning I wouldn’t discuss it any more. However I would just like to make one point. I published a design which I thought might answer but it was shown to be wrong but it was based on a far more convincing set of clues than anything Ken has shared. So far I haven’t published them but I’m writing them as and when I can. You can read some of the older ones I published in 2009, at my website www.the orffyreus code.com. They won’t show you how it worked but they will give you a sense of the recent clues which I found and identified. Ken’s design bears no relation to the one revealed in Bessler’s real clues.
      JC

      JC

      Delete
    5. Okay, John, let me try to get this straight. It sounds like you are claiming that all of your clues are the real and correct ones even though they only resulted in a nonrunning sim. Then you seem to be suggesting that all of Ken's clues must be incorrect even though they resulted in a running sim. For some reason the "logic" of your assertion seems to escape me! Maybe I'm interpreting what you are trying to say here?

      Delete
    6. @anon 04:27. If Ken's wheel proves to be a real runner but his clues are only imaginary, then that means he has actually invented a wheel that is new and different from Bessler's wheel. That would make Ken another Bessler! The chances of that are probably next to zero.

      I was impressed by that never before seen mouse clue in the first portrait. It's a nice little clue from Bessler and Ken's wheel design can explain why it's there.

      Delete
  21. Quite simply Ken B's wheel is complete nonsense. Height for Width math is not violated therefore it has zero chance of being a runner. If you think it does build it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FAWK there could be several people who are already trying to build it! Not everyone who's chasing Bessler's wheel is revealing what they are doing here or over on BW forum. But I'm sure that if any are successful then we'll hear all about it.

      Delete
    2. You'd expect one not embarrassed builder to report back on how it goes - just a "I'm attempting a replication" - not one lonely voice.

      Delete
    3. @anon 04:34. That anon at 18 October 2020 at 19:22 above says he's going to try to make a 6 foot version of Ken's wheel and have it done by early next year.

      Delete
  22. Anonymous20 October 2020 at 22:30

    You could be right that Ken did indeed find the solution using clues found in the portraits. My beef with the design is it seems really feeble, clumsy, and slow. Bessler's first wheel turned really fast, 50rpm if I am not mistaken. I don't see the wheel in Ken's YouTube video being capable of turning that fast, however, maybe he has the video running in slow motion. It would be good to know that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the torque in Ken's wheel will be low, but that is also what Bessler said about his first 3 foot diameter wheel which is what is shown in Ken's youtube video. Bessler said that first wheel of his could just barely keep itself in motion. Even when Bessler's larger wheels were being tested, it was noticed that their constant torque was low.

      I think that was a major turn off for potential buyers. They wanted to see the same kind of torques that windmills and water wheels could provide. Bessler kept telling them he could give them that torque by just making the wheels bigger and putting more of them on an axle. But, they wanted a smaller single wheel that could provide the torque and Bessler's wheels could not deliver that. I think that is the real reason he couldn't find a buyer despite his wheels not needing wind, water, or fuel.

      Many seem to think that the wheel shown in Ken's youtube video is turning at it's maximum speed which would be about 2 rpm's based on his video's half minute duration. BUT, read the description under the video. He states there that the video was purposely "greatly" slowed down so the motion of the levers could be better observed. His actual sim wheel may have been turning tens of times faster.

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
    2. Wow I missed that comment and will go look. Glad to know that, this changes my perception of the device.

      As you said, the wheel may have had low torque, but as long as the torque exceeded friction, the wheel would keep turning faster (run away affect). The only thing to keep it in line would be some added friction, perhaps by an adjustment bolt on the axle, or perhaps CF at some higher rotational speed started affecting the mechanism causing the wheel to slow, eventually an equilibrium point would be reached.

      Delete
    3. In his book Ken says that the free running speed of each of Bessler's wheels was mostly limited by the effects of the increasing CF acting on the ascending side weights and levers as a wheel's speed increased. The CF would delay the inward swinging of a lever about its pivot as it moved from the drum's 6 to 9 o'clock locations. That would then make the wheel's COG slowly rotate around the axle center with increasing wheel speed and toward a location directly under it and lower the torque available as it did so, but the COG could never quite reach that location so there would always be some small amount of torque present to counter friction and keep the drum turning at a constant speed. That speed limiting effect was not really a bad thing since it would keep the CF from eventually tearing the drum apart because its speed got too high.

      Delete
    4. It's a pity the You Tube sim video didn't show that CF effect even though it was supposedly at high speed but slowed down for presentation.

      Delete
    5. If by "show that CF effect" you mean that the weight arms on the levers should be pointing directly away from the axle and almost pinned in contact with their stops, then no that's not there. But, I do see some CF at work. When you look at a lever as it passes the 6:00 position, it takes a good 40 degrees of wheel rotation before that lever's weight starts to swing away from its stop due to the downward pull of gravity.

      Delete
  23. Sorry to intervene... It is becoming too much ridiculous...

    I mean JC sir is absolutely right when he asserts about Ken's claims... It is very sad that Ken is not coming to terms...

    There's no doubt that both of them have been putting up a lot of effort... The reality is entirely different...

    We are nowhere close to the truth... The fact is that Ken's claims are becoming too funny...
    And he just renders deaf ears...

    Unlike others, both have publicly opened up and disclosed their progress honestly and that's laudable... It really takes a lot to go public... Even Bessler didn't reveal so much this directly...

    Ken is becoming funnier and funnier and there seems to be no end to this onslaught... And in the melee, we fail to notice the actual truth disappearing...

    It is all just a game of beating around the bush...we must respect JC sir for keeping the subject alive and for bringing so much of bessler's personal info to the fore... His only blunder is, at the end of it all, he is not able to recon that he too bis really not on the right path...

    Many know this but are not openly coming out because of reprisals...

    The irony here is some even go to the extent of blindly backing JC sir in this respect... And this is really a great disaster...

    We are, infact, not doing any justice to the Bessler story at all...

    It makes me to wonder how and when this is all going to end... And, finally, who is going to bell the cat?...
    Is bessler's story destined to be handled this way?
    Is it good to keep fighting and pulling one another's legs?
    When are we going to act in a matured way?...
    Is the truth evading us or are we evading the truth?...
    Who is actually benefitting from all this?...
    Who is going to honestly address all these questions?...
    We are indulging in endless meaningless talks... Without getting fedup... And this is really another wonder... Years have passed without any intelligible progress...
    Who should be blamed for all this?...

    To conclude this I would like to honestly ask if anyone can really see any light at the end of the tunnel?...
    Should we change our present stance?...
    Bessler struggled and died abruptly and his vindication still waits...

    Good day...








    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank God you showed up here, Suresh, to finally teach both John and Ken and the rest of us how we blundered in our efforts to solve the Bessler wheel. When can we expect you to show us all the secret? I'm sure that we will all be amazed by what you have to show us!

      Delete
  24. Hi... Thank god...I was sort of expecting a more serious reaction... kind of brickbats...
    Coming to the secret... If I had the kind of info you have I would have released the same long back... the problem here is that when a real secret is revealed it is somewhat dismissed in an ignorant way... I tried doing it many times in the past but got a lukewarm response...also with criticism... That's when I stopped giving away much...

    For example, take the case of the great clue interpretation of children playing among pillars... What response was there, leave alone the appreciation part... Who actually spoiled the show there?

    Actually, many people are in the fray...with mind-boggling levels of ego...

    I hope you understand all this...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's sad that the people here do not realize what a true genius you are. You're better off not sharing the secret of Bessler's wheels with them because they would just be too ignorant to understand or appreciate it. They are like children who are just not ready for your advanced understanding of Bessler's wheels.

      Delete
  25. @ SK writes : "For example, take the case of the great clue interpretation of children playing among pillars"

    "Die Kinder spielen auf den Säulgen
    Mit lauter schweren Schniebe-Käulgen;"

    "the children play on the small columns
    with loud heavy marbles;"

    You see SK it doesn't say the children play among the pillars at all.

    So let me ask you a question?

    JC & KB have something in common. Both believe they have correctly interpreted visual clues that give mechanisms and a PM wheel design. Unfortunately both are very different. It is unlikely that both are correct.

    You on the other hand believe you have correctly interpreted the written words of Bessler to give mechanisms and a PM design?

    Is your devining of written clues ultimately any more reliable than JC's or KB's?

    Isn't it the cart before the horse?

    Find a PM design that works first, then correlate against the various Bessler clue sources both visual and of written word!

    That would be 100% reliable!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I quite agree with you...

    What you are not getting is that here a column is of two parts... primary and secondary... the primary column is actually the lever...the children refers to the second part of lever and the weight making the banging sound is the loud heavy marble...

    I am sure you would straightaway agree to this if you knew the actual bessler design...

    We shouldn't forget the awful simplicity of the BW design...

    The main parts are levers and weights...


    What matters is their proper arrangement and designing...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sssshhhh, Suresh! You're giving too much information away about how Bessler's wheels really worked. Before you know it John and Ken will be stealing your ideas and trying to present them as their own! Who knows how many ideas they've stolen from others over the years!

      Delete
    2. Suresh, I don't think you have any thing to worry about; no body cares how the wheel works----------------------Sam

      Delete
    3. So SK, you arrived at your PM wheel design by interpreting the written 'clues' as opposed to supposed visual 'clues'. Then you are no different from anybody else who has attempted one or the other, or both, over the last 300 years.

      Yeah yeah, I get it. It's different because you got it when nobody else did!

      Do you know how tragic that sounds?

      Delete
  27. Everyone should stop demeaning Ken's efforts. Maybe he did and does rub everyone wrong, I have not been around long enough to know all the history.

    Show me one other person that has dedicated a big part of his life to solving the Bessler mystery, and has shared much of it, and eventually released all he knows. John is heading in that direction, but I don't see one other person, not one. So you are all making fools of yourselves. Try doing some work and posting your results, instead of criticizing someone else for doing just that. Or could it be that you are incapable of doing that?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Can any of you prove the clues Ken found are not really clues? If not, shut up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would it do any good? If he is half as smart as I think he is, he already knows it won't work---------------------Sam

      Delete
    2. Clues unfortunately tend to be subjective. Every Bessler pm wheel chaser will eventually find the clues that fit in with his particular preconceived notion of how Bessler's wheels may have worked. Some will find clues that suggest levers or sliding weights or scissor mechanisms or a dozen other things. They all really remain imaginary until and unless they lead to a working wheel. Without a working real wheel, a working sim is nice. But sometimes whether a sim works or not depends on the software used and the person using it. A working sim is certainly better than not having one, but it's always best to have an actual physical wheel you can put on a table and let others visually examine while its running. So far, no one's there yet but hopefully it will happen someday.

      jason

      Delete
  29. I would say Suresh and Sam, along with the other Anon's here, are just a bunch of whinny ass fools, but then I would be stooping to their level of brainlessness.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Reff. AA 18:15 I think you are right; I am a fool------------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is John Collins Blog about his ideas. Ken B and his cheer leading squad of alter egos bomb in here more regular than a metronome and crap in the corner. Pathetic toads. Have some respect for yourself and start your own Blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you anon 20.48. I’ve told Ken more than once, to start his own blog and I’ll even put a link to it here, but he hasn’t yet. I’ve told him to sign in here so we know he is commenting but he hasn’t yet.

      JC

      Delete
    2. JC and others beliefs that there are KB sock puppets posting all over this blog could just be a product of their paranoia. If KB wanted to post here wouldn't he just do it with his google account? Why would he do so anonymously or with pseudonyms? I don't think he's the type who does things like that.

      Also excluding any mention of him, his book, or his wheel design isn't really fair to those who may want to discuss them and learn more about them. It will only be perceived as censorship being done by JC because he's annoyed and envious that someone else may have actually finally found Bessler's secret while he failed to do so. JC said several times in the past that he welcomed the rediscovery of Bessler's wheel secret no matter who found it. Maybe he should have said that he welcomed it just as long as HE was the one that found it? How would JC feel if KB did start his own blog and decided to censor out any mention of JC or his reprints of Bessler's books? I don't think he'd like it.

      I welcome input here by anyone with a sincere interest in Bessler's wheels, the clues in his writings and drawings, and anything else related to him. The more information we have the better. Once censorship starts against anyone it's usually not long before it's being applied to everyone. If that happens JC may find the number of people commenting here rapidly dropping down to zero. I found a blog once where the owner decided he'd start delaying and screening any comments before he allowed them on his blog. A few weeks after that his new comments dropped to only a trickle a week by those that he approved of because they stroked his ego just right. Finally, they all dropped out and weren't replaced and then, the last time I checked, he hadn't had a new comment on his blog in over five years!

      Delete
    3. Hi Desperate, the beauty of bw.com or overunity.com is that there are multiple topics and discussion forums. You also have the ability to ignore someone you don't wish to read. Especially if they start abusing the goodwill of the members and it annoys them. KB found out this the hard way in 2006 at bw.com.

      The key word is abuse!

      JC's blog is one topic at a time, few choices to ignore other than the old fashioned way which has limitations. This limits his choices to 'manage' the abusers and haters.

      If he wants to degenerate to a free-for-all circus from others agendas then we might as well close up and go home now. Because the people who want to be constructive about his designs won't bother wading through 100 long messages of thigh-deep shite and trash offered up by the rent-a-mob that threatens to take control .

      JC will have to consider his agenda - and – the good, the bad, and the ugly! -

      Delete
    4. I don't think there's anyone posting here that doesn't annoy someone else and "abuse his goodwill" on occasion or even regularly. If every complaint resulted in a person having his comments deleted, there probably wouldn't be any comments left here!

      People here were very "constructive" about JC's recently failed wheel and will be again with his next hopefully successful one if he reveals it early this time. When he puts up a new blog topic I'm sure he expects people to eventually start wandering off of it as they've been doing now for over a decade. It's an accepted part of following this blog. Maybe those who don't like it should go off and start their own blogs where they can tightly control them to make sure that never happens. After they see how boring that quickly becomes they will make sure their new blog looks just like this one! There's nothing more annoying then trying to post on a site where there are censors suffering from "moderatoritis" who get a thrill by seeing how many people whose opinions they can control.

      Delete
    5. JC wrote in Blog Intro : "Decided to post this little update just to draw a line under the last blog which was getting longer and longer and looooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggeeerr.......But I love lots of comments so keep them coming!"

      How many have commented here relating to what JC said in his blog body? Not many? How many polluted this blog with off-topic talk of KB etc? Many or few many times!

      The solution is a middle road path where JC sets up a side blog parallel to his own that is about KB's book and claims! When you enter here you select JC's blog or KB's blog.

      AND bans all cross posting or KB drift to his branch of the competition? It gets deleted LOL.

      Delete
    6. An 1:25 :

      "Maybe those who don't like it should go off and start their own blogs where they can tightly control them to make sure that never happens."

      I think that is what John intended for Ken.

      But may be you are right. Topics over at bw.com eventually run out of steam or divert off topic. It's a blessing that there is no discussion in each and every thread about KB including John's. When John winds this one up and starts the next how long will it take? I must check on OU.com to see if he's all over that, and leave quickly lol.

      Delete
    7. I like this blog just the way it is. Some will chatter on about the pro's and con's of John's or Ken's wheel or anyone else's wheel if they show one. Great, that's why I come to a blog like this.

      I also don't want to see the SG's and SK's that periodically show up here eliminated because they usually go off topic and then keep telling us they have the answer because I'm hoping they will eventually show us something other than vague hints. Should John delete the post above from the anon who found a mouse hidden in the first DT portrait just because John doesn't think there are clues in the portraits? Imo, that was an important discovery and it's announcement here was a first. Maybe he's wrong and why should that keep others who are interested in seeing more clues in the portraits be denied that? I'd also like to see more of the "main" clues John thinks justified that last design that Wubby simmed and showed wasn't a runner. It's no one's fault here if John is not showing them yet. If someone else has something interesting to talk about while waiting for John to show us something, then great, let's hear about it.

      I think we really have to worry about anons that show up here and do nothing more than complain about how the blog needs to be "improved". Other than their complaints, they usually contribute nothing of substance to any of the discussions here. They can actually cause a lot of damage that the site may never fully recover from if a blog owner actually takes their advice.

      Delete
  32. John .. you may have to instigate a no exception sign-in protocol for a while to weed these junkies out, if they won't go willingly, which KB won't. They revel in it, beating the same drum; any PR is better than no PR, sad but true. That may mean that there is less diversity but also less B.S.. The downside is you might lose a few contributors you don't want to lose who value the ability to post anonymously.

    Or .. you could just be much harder, put up a banner saying discussion about KB and his sims, wheel, book etc is banned in a weeks time from your Blog and ALL related posts will be instantly deleted. Be the CEO and at the same time weed the garden !

    If he then wants to link to your Blog with one of his own, well and good, and they can discuss his sims and wheels, and a few might even cross over for a look in every now and then. The echoes might get deafening.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
  33. P.S. I don't imagine the current direction is the legacy you had in mind.

    And turning of comments periodically to self police isn't working - they just save to clip board before posting later IINM.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
  34. Free Trade vs Fair Trade. Let it run its course and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think of the past and really relish some good moments...

    There were a few great characters who genuinely would appreciate if there were any good contributions... Any good comment... I mean the likes of Andre sir...

    Well... Not a single such character exists today in this blog...

    Sob...Sob...Sob...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a box of Kleenex tissue to wipe away your tears, Suresh.

      I remember some really bizarre characters like "Mr. Lepard Spots" and "The Realist". They came and dumped their thoughts out here with varying amounts of civility. Some even had fans who missed them when they departed. They tended to provide some badly needed comic relief for our usually all too serious subject. If John is like the king of this little blog court, they were like the jesters. Every court needs some jesters.

      Delete
    2. Well thank you all for the comments and all seem very reasonable to me.

      Let me just explain why I keep deriding Ken and the comments which I always attribute to him. He kindly allowed me to read a digital copy of his book and I said I would review it and I would be fair, but he must then stop promoting it on this blog. I did review it and I was critical but I was fair. Since then he, or some others who’s comments bear a remarkable similarity to his wordy style have frequently promoted the book and Ken’s ideas. I have reluctantly threatened to delete their comments if they don’t desist, but it has little or no effect. The truth is that I have probably deleted no more than one or two comments a year over the last ten years.

      So why do I persist in attacking Ken’s comments? I read his book with great care, once briefly to get the full picture and then again more carefully, studying the clues he claims to have found and what he thought they meant. The clues simply don’t stand up to examination, and therefore his interpretations are baseless.

      The clues first have to be recognisable and distinct so that anyone can firm an impression of what they are intended to mean. They are not recognisable, more like imaginary. For this reason I have formed the opinion that the whole book is an attempt to gain credit, sales and income for Ken and good luck to him, but I don’t want him to dilute the subject matter of my blogs, neither do I wish to delete any comments unnecessarily.

      JC

      Delete
    3. "The clues simply don’t stand up to examination, and therefore his interpretations are baseless."

      That's your opinion (no doubt biased by the clues that you think you've found and your mistaken belief that there are no portrait clues) and we'll probably find others who have also studied Ken's DT portrait clues and their interpretations and will reach the opposite conclusion. I'm also sure that if and when you finally post those major clues that led you to your just debunked wheel design, you will find many who will quickly label them and your interpretations of them as "baseless" and then casually dismiss them all.

      The most important indicator of whether one's clues and their interpretations are valid is if they actually lead to a working wheel. Right now you have neither a working wheel nor a working sim. Ken has no working wheel but claims to have a working sim. That would seem, at this point in time, to put him ahead of you in the race to crack the secret of Bessler's wheels.

      You seem to think Ken's only motivation in writing his book on Bessler's wheels was to make money off of it. I doubt if he or any other niche market author will ever make any serious money off of a book. Did you make a fortune off of the sales of your reprints of the Bessler books? I notice that you did not even consider the possibility that Ken is a truly dedicated Bessler wheel researcher who is actually trying to advance our knowledge of Bessler's wheels so they can finally be reproduced. I'm sure, however, that you consider yourself to be one. The reality is that he's just as serious about finding a solution as you or anybody else is. He's also gone to great lengths to make sure that what he's discovered does not just get lost like Bessler's original wheels did.

      All of your derision will not make the results of his research magically disappear so you can feel more comfortable knowing they are gone. They will be around and will continue to influence serious thought about Bessler's wheels for many years to come. I look forward to seeing the first working Bessler wheel reproductions based on the design that he found. That could actually happen in the coming year or maybe the next. If so, then how you react to that news should be most interesting to watch.

      Delete
    4. Don't hold your breath waiting for a working wheel based on your design, Ken.

      JC

      Delete
    5. I think what finally convinced me Ken has something real was when I saw that anon above mention that "squeezed mouse" clue he found in the first DT portrait. I thought he was seeing things until I saw it with my own eyes. He gave an interpretation of this new clue as meaning that the levers in Bessler's wheels hadn't yet touched their stops inside of the drum when they reached its 3 o'clock location assuming clockwise rotation. That's a very detailed clue. Then another poster later mentions that clue also exactly describes levers reaching the 3 o'clock position in Ken's wheel which don't quite touch their stops.

      I can't write that off as just due to a coincidence. It looks to me like Bessler purposely put that mouse clue there to describe that the 3 o'clock levers in his wheels didn't make contact with their stops until after they passed the 3 o'clock position of a drum. There's no other way to explain it, imo. That clue would be of great interest to anyone trying to figure out how Bessler's wheels worked. There could also be similar little clues sprinkled throughout Bessler's drawings that no one's yet noticed. I think this little mouse clue discovery may just start turning everybody's attention back to those two portraits again.

      Delete
    6. Hey, anon 09:46, the next time John and his followers start mocking your hero Ken or his wheel, just remember how Bessler would have responded to them (taken from the beginning of AP):

      "To the prejudiced and blasphemous enemy:

      Dear Enemy - please continue to think that it is your duty to lampoon my work, because it leads in directions you may not wish it to go! You have the spirit of a slanderer. But Truth will triumph, and will reveal the confusion in your "thoughts". People of common sense have always been scorned, and it doesn't really matter who the scoundrels who perpetrate such untruths are, because, enemy, all you write comes from arrogance and envy and amounts to nothing more than slander and waste paper. Write as many lies as you like in your angry attempts to destroy my Wheel of Wonder! In its interior it gains - for how else does it grow out of balance?"

      Delete
    7. I don't know how anyone could fail to be impressed by Bessler's anger and sincerity in that quote from AP. He had something real and was obviously highly offended by those that were attacking him and his wheels.

      But, he also needed to realize that it was easy for them to mock him and his wheels because he refused to reveal how they worked prior to selling the invention and the skeptics automatically assumed they had to be hoaxed like many other wheels previously produced by other inventors. Maybe like Jesus during the crucifixion, Bessler needed to just say "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34) and then put all of his focus on finding a buyer instead of wasting time trying to convince those who could never be convinced by what limited information he was revealing.

      Delete
  36. Once again, Ken's wheel is a joke! He really doesn't believe that it will work either or he would have it built. What would the first working wheel be worth to a museum? He knows that by building his wheel , that won't work, would have a negative effect on his book sales. I don't take pleasure in seeing all his hard work and time and up fruitless but it is what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I'm sure he thinks it works and, so far, he might be right since no one has actually disproved it yet. Just declaring someone's wheel design is a nonrunner without any sims to back that up is just a guess. Also just because he's decided not to build it himself in no way means he doubts it will work. That is only an assumption you are making. I suspect that he probably doesn't want to build it himself because either he can't for some reason (health maybe) or if he could he knows that if he does and announces that it works, the skeptics will just immediately say he's hoaxing it or lying. By letting many others take care of the extra verifying sims and actual real wheel building, he must be thinking that will reduce the chance of all of them being dismissed as hoaxes. Kind of like a safety in numbers approach and it sort of makes sense when you think about it.

      Delete
    2. Well..., one thing is for sure. Ken is taking himself very serious. Problem is no one else does. Same with his wheel. ... and book.

      Delete
    3. @justsomeone

      John also thinks his wheel was a runner but could not get it built. It would be helpful for Ken to release his SIM for scrutiny, but everyone should be building or SIMing, trying to come up with a runner or their own, instead of bashing others. If Ken has a runner great, if not, oh well, that has nothing to do with me. I am working my own wheel and everyone else should be doing the same.

      Delete
    4. Marinus wrote: "Ken is taking himself very serious. Problem is no one else does."

      I think it's a mistake to assume others don't take him or his wheel design seriously. I checked his youtube wheel video recently and he's gotten almost 5,700 views of it since it first appeared in July of last year. If only 1% of them eventually bought his Bessler book as a result, that's 57 books (he may have also sold many other copies through other means). Maybe of those that read his book a few will actually attempt to build the 3 foot wheel design he found using the directions he provides. Any day now one of them might announce it's a runner or not. In any event, I think that next year will be a very interesting for Bessler pm wheel chasers.

      Delete
    5. @Anon 00:42. Only selling to 1% of the viewers of his wheel video might be on the low side. It could be as high as 5% which would mean he may have sold as many as 285 copies though his youtube wheel video. Also he has more than a single video. IIRC he actually has three or four of them. Maybe an estimate of about 500 book sales through all of his youtube videos would be more accurate.

      Delete
  37. Here is something for you all to ponder on let's see if any of you can make the connections.

    https://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2011/01/the-guts-of-mathematics-archimedes-dog-and-the-greaseless-anatomy-of-machines.html

    ReplyDelete
  38. P.S. And if you're real clever you might find the child and marble.
    There is no such thing as a coincidence!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link to the page showing a print depicting the murder of Archimedes. A tragic event because he was so absorbed by a geometry problem he was working on at the time that he did not move fast enough to suit a soldier sent to arrest him. The soldier may have smacked him on the head with his heavy sword to get his attention, but that then gave the aging Archimedes a fractured skull and a fatal brain hemorrhage as a result.

      https://longstreet.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83542d51e69e20147e19a9fd2970b-800wi

      If you look at the chair in the lower right corner of the print I think you will see the "child and marble" that SG refers to. But, they are only ornaments on the chair. The "child" is a carved head that may represent one of the divine Muses that were believed to inspire creative people. The "marble" is just a carved round knob at the end of the chair's arm that one was supposed to grab hold of to help push himself about on the chair.

      Sorry, SG, but I don't really see any of this having any relevance for Bessler's wheels. If you do, then please explain.

      jason

      Delete
    2. Anon Jason Did you look at the base of the column or the table with the globe and the picture of the block and tackle behind it and here's something for you that drawing also says the same thing as albrecht durer Melancholia&I. Whether you believe it or not that image invokes the understanding of the particular lever and if you knew that lever you would not have to build a machine to absolutely no it will work I am not interested in anyone's opinion I'm talking fact not fiction Bessler learned of Archimedes lever and applied the principle.

      Delete
    3. The base of the column looks like it shows Atlas holding up the Earth on his shoulders. The block and tackle behind the globe on the right is interesting and Archimedes is said to have once pulled a ship up onto dry land using a compound pulley system he invented back in 3rd century BC. But, I still don't see any relevance to Bessler's wheels.

      jason

      Delete
    4. Jason the artist of this drawing embossed an image at the base of a column ask yourself what does a column mechanically represent?
      When you think you have the answer post it then we will move on to another element in the drawing this may seem odd to you but it is necessary to understanding. Then after a few of these you will be able to decipher the rest of it yourself.

      Delete
  39. Eureka!
    c. 1600, from Greek heureka "I have found (it)," first person singular perfect active indicative of heuriskein "to find" (see heuristic). Supposedly shouted by Archimedes (c. 287-212 B.C.E.) when he solved a problem that had been set to him: determining whether goldsmiths had adulterated the metal in the crown of Hiero II, king of Syracuse.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I've been told that I'm just a fucken whinny asshole! I don't know about any one else but, I think I've had enough of it-------------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually I think the term was "whinny ass fool".

      Delete
  41. Too bad to hear. Maybe you should do something else for a few weeks. I can almost see your wheel turning. The upper pendulums swinging from left to right pushing the wheel down. It must be a very simple but big clock-escapement that drives the pendulums directly.

    Oh, and by the way, I've stopped months ago. I will pick it up in a few months. Thinking of it, though. Got some ideas that I must try in Algodoo.

    Too bad John's wheel is not working. I knew it wouldn't. It won't work with five.
    You need three at minimum. Six will work and nine will be max. There's no room for more. Angels of 40 degrees but overcoming 20 should be enough.

    I know this contradicts the 8 bangs heard during one revolution. But how accurate was that measured? Miscounted? Maybe there where nine. Besides the weights in the wheel may be a little behind. Out of phase so to speak. You count 8 bangs during one revolution of the outer wheel you are watching but inside the revolution has not completed yet. After all the weights are swinging in the wheel.

    Take three pendulums and ponder the same question Bessler did.

    - How do you get the weight over the top -

    Let the Toy-Page inspire you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This is not intended to annoy or wound anyone...it is Just to kindle or inspire or provoke one to move ahead and realize the Bessler secret... So, please ensure that there is no negativity around...

    There's an old Indian saying which states " Bandhar kya jaane Adrak ka swaadh"...
    Which simply means how can a monkey know or relish the great taste of Ginger...

    If you handover a garland to monkeys what will result... The monkeys won't know the value of it... They would just pluck and plunder...
    If a valuable Bessler clue is presented to the wrong audience you can thus imagine the scene... Let's not behave like a bunch of monkeys...

    Great interpretation of bessler's clues appears once in a blue moon... After much efforts and perspiration... Let us learn to cherish it... Let us bring back the past glory of this blog... Let us act in a real matured way... Let us have the boldness to creep out of the anonymous status... let us not create more tension to our aging blogowner... Let us not deviate from the subject...

    And finally, let us show real respect to one another present here...
    We should turn this unique discussion platform into a fish market...

    Thanks and have great time...


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't like the taste of ginger. I must be a monkey! But, I do love bananas.

      Delete
  43. We have an old saying too

    Empty vessels make the most sound !

    translated

    Empty vessels make the most sound !

    ReplyDelete
  44. We shouldn't turn this unique discussion platform into a fish market... Negativity has already started to pour in...

    What does it mean :

    A bow twangs...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Shuresh the real question is how did the fish get in the market where they caught by line or net and was it really the bow that twang or the cord that was strung upon it. I suppose it's all in the way you play the game in order to find something extraordinary it's really rather simple your statement says more about how Bessler's machine worked then you consciously understand. Know thyself!

    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...