Tuesday, 12 January 2021

The Legend of Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine

Once again I’m posting the Legend of Bessler’s wheel because I’m going to be working hard on finishing my reconstruction of Bessler’s wheel. 2020 was another traumatic year for my family and it was a year of unbelievable events and consequences for the rest of the world. There was little time to spend in my garage where the build should have been happening, but time is racing by and I must concentrate on finishing the job. The sooner I finish it the better.


Please feel free to comment if you wish and I will try to check back daily. So here it is again, 

The Legend of Bessler's wheel.

On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had succeeded in designing and building a perpetual motion machine. For more than fourteen years he exhibited his machine and allowed people to thoroughly examine it. Following advice from the famous scientist, Gottfried Leibniz, who was able to examine the device, he devised a number of demonstrations and tests designed to prove the validity of his machine without giving away the secret of its design.


Karl the Landgrave of Hesse permitted Bessler to live, work and exhibit his machine at the prince's castle of Weissenstein. Karl was a man of unimpeachable reputation and he insisted on being allowed to verify the inventor's claims before he allowed Bessler to take up residence. This the inventor reluctantly agreed to and once he had examined the machine to his own satisfaction Karl authorised the publication of his approval of the machine. For several years Bessler was visited by numerous people of varying status, scientists, ministers and royalty. Several official examinations were carried out and each time the examiners concluded that the inventor's claims were genuine.


Over several years Karl aged and it was decided that the inventor should leave the castle and he was granted accommodation in the nearby town of Karlshafen. Despite the strong circumstantial evidence that his machine was genuine, Bessler failed to secure a sale and after more than thirty years he died in poverty. His death came after he fell from a windmill he had been commissioned to build. The windmill was an interesting design using a vertical axle which allowed it to benefit from winds from any directions. 


He had asked for a huge sum of money for the secret of his perpetual motion machine, £20,000 which was an amount only affordable by kings and princes, and although many were interested, none were prepared to agree to the terms of the deal. Bessler required that he be given the money and the buyer take the machine without viewing the internal workings. Those who sought to purchase the wheel, for that was the form the machine took, insisted that they see the secret mechanism before they parted with the money. Bessler feared that once the design was known the buyers could simply walk away knowing how to build his machine and he would get nothing for his trouble.


I became curious about the legend of Bessler’s Wheel, while still in my teens, and have spent most of my life researching the life of Johann Bessler (I’m now 75). I obtained copies of all his books and had them translated into English and self-published them, in the hope that either myself or someone else might solve the secret and present it to the world in this time of pollution, global warming and increasingly limited energy resources.

Not long after I was able to read the English translations of his books, I became convinced that Bessler had embedded a number of clues in his books.  These took the form of hints in the text, but also in a number of drawings he published.  Subsequently I found suggestions by the author that studying his books would reveal more information about his wheel.


For some ideas about Bessler’s code why not visit my web sites atwww.theorffyreuscode.com or see my work on his “Declaration of Faith” at http://www.orffyreus.net/

Also please view my video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0
It gives a brief account both the legend and some more detail about some of the codes.


The problem of obtaining a fair reward for all his hard work was anticipated by Bessler and he took extraordinary measures to ensure that his secret was safe, but he encoded all the information needed to reconstruct the machine in a small number of books that he published. He implied that he was prepared to die without selling the secret and that he believed that posthumus acknowledgement was preferable to being robbed of his secret while he yet lived.

It has recently become clear that Bessler had a huge knowledge of the history of codes and adopted several completely different ones to disguise information within his publications. I have made considerable advances in deciphering his codes and I am confident that I have the complete design.

Johann Bessler published three books, and digital copies of these with English translations may be obtained from the links to the right of this blog. In addition there is a copy of his unpublished document containing some 141 drawings - and my own account of Bessler’s life is also available from the links. It is called "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?

Bessler's three published books are entitled "Grundlicher Bericht", "Apologia Poetica" and "Das Triumphirende...". I have called Bessler's collection of 141 drawings Maschinen Tractate, but it was originally found in the form of a number of loosely collected drawings of perpetual motion designs. Many of these have handwritten notes attached and I have published the best English translation of them that I was able to get. Bessler never published these drawings but clearly intended to do so at some point.

As I often say, the solution to this device is needed now.  Anything that might help cleanse the planet of pollution, green house gas emissions, by providing clean cheap alternative energy sources should encouraged in its discovery and development to counter global warming.

JC 

17682

98 comments:

  1. "In his Maschinen Tractate No 9, Bessler writes
    nothing is to be accomplished with any device unless my principle of connectedness is activated"

    I have a feeling that we still haven't correctly figured out what Bessler meant with the above pasted translation... Most think it has something to do with cords or straps... But it could be something else altogether... The entire wheel movement or operation could be dependent on it... This also goes to prove that we are nowhere near to solving the mystery... It is an irony, despite of so many clues and discussions, we are yet to understand the simplicity of the wheel...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bonjour et bonne est heureuse année à tous.
      Le résultat de mes essais me font penser qu'il y a deux systèmes à trouver.
      Un pour l'entrainement de la roue pour avoir du couple.
      Un pour entretenir un déséquilibre au moment opportun.
      J. Boniface

      Delete
    2. Above translated reads, “ Hello and happy new year everyone.
      The results of my tests make me think that there are two systems to find.
      One for driving the wheel to get torque.
      One to maintain an imbalance at the right time.
      J. Boniface”

      Delete
    3. Suresh, we don’t know what Bessler meant by his ‘connectedness principle’, but generally I guess we assume it refers to a connection between two or more mechanisms? Is it a rigid connection or a flexible one? Does it operate in two directions or only one. Is it sprung?

      JC

      Delete
    4. It definitely isn't that, JC sir... Something entirely different... More profound, if you ask me... A different dimension altogether... He is certainly not talking about any connection within the wheel whether rigid or flexible... Nor it is about the direction...

      Delete
  2. J.Boniface... you are absolutely right... There are two systems... One drives and the other runs... One provides the required torque and the other imbalances...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like J. Boniface My build shows that TWO movements are needed:weights shift SUDDENLY at 6 o'clock position on the crossbar (see A.P.355), shifting moment of inertia and therefor angular momentum which manifests as sudden torque on the crossbar. The second movement transfers that torque to the rim as hinted at in M.T.18 using weighted spring arms. M.T. 138 A and B MAY indicate an escapement via the pantograph with weighted spring arms and rimstops. Comments appreciated!

    ReplyDelete
  4. RAF... I can't make out what you are trying to say entirely but MT 18 design you are hinting is really not going to lead you to a successful end...

    ReplyDelete
  5. RAF... Overall, the references made by You by stating Pantograph and A.P.355 actually have no relevance, hence, I am sure you are not on the right track...

    ReplyDelete
  6. We usually resort to designs or mechanisms rejected by Bessler himself and hope to achieve PM... It would rather be more gainful if we try to understand his written clues instead... a more novel approach is required... You won't find much in the drawings... Infact, you will have to compare all the drawings to arrive at an Idea... Here, you could get easily distracted... Some drawings usually referred by Ken or RAF make no sense at all... To make that groundbreaking and original discovery very genuine and natural efforts are required... Think about it...

    Good day...

    ReplyDelete
  7. John, Could you show the article you wrote over 10 years ago or is it the same as in "principle" and "the mechanisms theoretically" at besslerswheel.com? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Richard, I knew when I added that comment it might arouse some curiosity but I deliberately left it vague because it relates to something I’m working on at the moment. I’d prefer not to be more explicit at the moment, but as soon I’ve tried my design out I’ll explain what meant.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Is it possible Ken hacked into Suresh Kumar's account and is posting as Suresh? There seems to be an inordinate of number of bloviated posts in the Ken style of posting.

      Delete
  8. Is it just my internet connection or is everyone unable to see besslerwheel.com?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see the besslerwheel.com home page John but, not the forum or the wiki. The forum page is just a blank.
      (5:16pm London time).

      Zhy

      Delete
    2. Even when bw.com is up, there isn't much to see there anyway. The good days are long gone.

      Delete
    3. If it's due to a ransomware attack on his server then unless he pays some big $$$'s we won't be seeing the old bw forum or any of its past posts again. All of those millions of hours of creative work flushed right down the drain forever. That's what can happen if you don't have the best antimalware protection possible.


      Anonymous and PROUD of it!

      Delete
    4. Thanks guys I thought it was me but I guess Scott is having problems. I’m sure it will be up and running tomorrow.

      JC

      Delete
  9. Probably just a couple of links dropped out or sabotaged. Scott will get onto it when he can.

    ReplyDelete
  10. BW is the best site on the web for discussions out of mainstream. If someone ever gets an answer, they most likely are going to announce it at BW.

    Walt

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're probably right Walt.

    Anon 18:03 - "Even when bw.com is up, there isn't much to see there anyway. The good days are long gone."

    No one solved the mystery in the earlier days of bw.com, though a lot was written.

    What was good about those days then?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Every one has their point of view. If you were to take the view of a physicist you would 'know' before it started it was doomed to failure.

    Of all that was written I can only cite a couple of ideas I think are very important. Not the least of these is that Bessler was.

    With respect to the ideas of PM there are only a couple. With one of those ideas I made a sim go 9.2 million rpm. With BW I got the idea of using a simulation.

    At times were blessed with geniuses, probably much like you, that explain why this is impossible. I see those objection as problems to solve.

    Am I finished? No, but I don't want to give you too much to read.


    Walt

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe someone has a working wheel and Scott wants to eliminate the record.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another misconception maintained by us is that Bessler wheel is solely powered by Gravity...

    Actually, we can better understand or do away with this myth is only after the wheel is built... Only after we observe its internal mechanism and figure out how it works...

    In the meanwhile, there's no much use claiming gravity as being the sole power source of BW... This may even result in a great distraction... it is our ignorance that makes us conclude that gravity is the source... Logically speaking, even comparing gravity to wind and water just makes no sense... All the three have different effects on different mechanisms... Sometimes, we get solace by comparing them...
    Let us come out of our ignorance... It is high time... Some of us are at our fag end of life and can we afford to make such costly, if not silly, mistakes... May God bless us with common sense... I have a feeling, despite our increasing age we are still very immature sometimes...

    Good day...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gravity is the enabler of Bessler’s wheel, without it, his wheel would not turn continuously.

      Jac

      Delete
  15. JC sir, you mean to say that BW won't work otherwise?... I can bet that if gravity is replaced by magnetism it will definitely work...

    So, it is clear that gravity is not the criteria... In vacuum like conditions that exists in space we can expect BW to perform well in presence of just magnetic field...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was referring Johann Bessler’s wheel. JC

      Delete
  16. I can't put my finger on exactly why how ever I'm getting the sense Suresh is one sleazy sack of gewia.

    Walt

    ReplyDelete
  17. Suresh said, "Some of us are at our fag end of life and can we afford to make such costly, if not silly, mistakes..."

    You really shouldn't be sharing these intimate personal details on a public forum.

    ReplyDelete
  18. SK .. you think you are helping but you lead the unwary further astray with your musings, and that's what they are. Magnetism can not work for a wheel so large. Just follow that magnetism boys on other sites to educate yourself why not.

    What is often forgotten is that B's. original one-way wheels had to be tied down with a rope, and released. They had positive torque but were physically restrained from rotating. The iron journals (stub axles) also sat in open bearings for inspection.

    BW > Eyewitness Accounts :

    Gottfried Teuber (1656 - 1731) Court Cleric and Mathematician. Viewed the one-directional wheel in 1714.

    "It is a hollow wheel of wood, ten feet in diameter and six inches thick. It is covered by thin wooden planks to hide the internal mechanism. The axle is also wooden, and extends one foot beyond the wheel. It has three teeth which are for moving three wooden stamps similar to those used in pounding mills. The stamps are quite heavy and are lifted and dropped continuously. The iron journals move in open bearings so as to show that neither deception nor an external energy supply are necessary to the machine's motion.

    Having made an appointment with the inventor, we approached the machine and noticed that it was secured by a cord to the rim of the wheel. Upon the cord being released, the machine began to rotate with great force and noise, maintaining its speed without increasing or decreasing it for some considerable time. To stop the wheel and retie the cord required tremendous effort."

    ReplyDelete
  19. In vacuum conditions that's in space things are weightless however large, Ken... A slight pull from magnets placed strategically can make the wheel spin...

    My point was to clarify that gravity is not mandatory to turn a BW... Even magnetism will suffice...

    The problem is all this can be understood only when you really see the actual internal mechanism of a Bessler wheel... I think JC sir is in agreement with my view...

    ReplyDelete
  20. You show your vast ignorance SK. You do no research. You open your mouth to change feet. Your musing are less than worthless!

    ReplyDelete
  21. On Blogger since March 2016. Humm. Such great ideas but no blog. And at the fag end of his life.

    I'm befuddled.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Now that we know that magnetism can also be enabler let's take another step further in this regard...

    After building the BW if you want to increase its output or efficiency you just have to lift the entire wheel and then place it on a magnetic platform...

    You can reap the double benefit of gravity as well as magnetism...

    Good day...

    ReplyDelete
  23. SK wrote:
    After building the BW if you want to increase its output or efficiency you just have to lift the entire wheel and then place it on a magnetic platform...

    The B-wheel is made of wood and "probably" leaden weights. None of these materials are magnetic. If you do that nothing will happen.

    You need to change the material of the weight to iron so that a magnetic field will induce a force on them. Also you need to make the wheel much smaller because a magnetic field isn't that big.

    If you do that the wheel will rotate and much, much faster. Because the pendulums in the mechanism are smaller and the force/energy field is stronger.

    A B-wheel works with weights(masses) and is enabled by gravity.

    A similar design with magnets and ferrous materials should not be called a Bessler Wheel anymore.

    BW works with gravity. If you do not understand and accept that, you haven't even begun to solve the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marinus... I am not a fool... you are talking like Ken...It is understood... When you want to avail magnetic advantage you got to use that metal which is magnetic...

      Please note the days of wood and lead are over... We use aluminium for the frame and iron for weights... Also, pls note BW doesn't always mean the same old Wheel constructed by Bessler originally... We use modern ball bearings and iron angles...

      Instead of appreciating the idea you are being silly by thinking I have made silly mistakes...

      For your information, I have researched for more than 30 years on this topic and am ready to compete with anyone as far as the internal mechanism is concerned...

      Bessler didn't have access to modern machinery that is why he used wood and lead mostly...

      But we need not even think in those terms now... What matters is the principle he used... The connectedness principle...

      JC sir doesn't use in his build the same old materials that Bessler used, does he?...

      These days when we all try to understand or build Bessler Wheel we mostly use aluminium and iron for the weights and if we have to take advantage of magnetic force definitely we have to change the material...

      For God's sake, pls don't be childish and narrow minded... We as a team have to work together instead of leg pulling which seems to be the trend here...

      Delete
    2. and am ready to compete with anyone as far as the internal mechanism is concerned...

      Sure you are.

      Delete
  24. Has anyone heard anything about Besslerwheel.com? Has anyone talked to Scott?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm calling his hosting service now.

    Walt

    ReplyDelete
  26. SK .. many of us are at the "fag end of our lives", attempting to solve this mystery. There are not many up and coming "young" men in game. And if there are they don't stick around long due to the need to take care of other life matters and priorities, which we also face and have faced.

    In case you haven't noticed, after 18 years of the modern BW.com forum operating, and a good number of years of JC's blog operating, the mood has changed. Pretenders crowing from the nearest pedestal are no longer tolerated or revered. We have a saying in the South Pacific, "piss or get off the pot". Many of us have been at this hobby for way longer than we ever anticipated. I've seen good men come and go, plain run out of time. When I joined BW.com I thought a decade at the outside to solve the mechanical mystery, possibly 2 years. That came and went with only hard won incremental gains from sharing ideas and discussion on all facets of the Bessler story. No groundbreaking breakthroughs.

    Now the mood is to be more open and helpful, for the greater good. Realising that father time is against every individual. And that this quest, while anecdotally simple in theory, is intellectually demanding to solve. Probably because of that innate simplicity factor, and a permeating belief in scientific circles that we are beating a dead horse i.e. our subconscious mind has to fight against the Physics disconnect.

    You say that you are "ready to compete with anyone as far as the internal mechanism is concerned". Are you really ready to share now or do you just say that. 6 months ago you were ready to finally build a POP of your 'must be a runner' design. The culmination of your 30 years of deep thought about the mystery. Then you pulled out of that saying you were too lazy to do a build. And that sims are a waste of time so you won't learn those.

    The bottom line is that you may be happy to go to your death bed 'believing' you have a runner design. If so then I wish you happy thoughts to the end. But I for one don't want to hear from the likes of yourself or SG who constantly crow that you have a viable mechanical solution, but will never provide any credible detail for discussion nor evidence of such. IMO you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. And a throwback to a bygone era of the early days of BW.com, where about once per month someone claimed a working wheel, or sure thing 'must be runner', but I can't share anything of substance. Yawn !

    They were told the same thing "piss or get off the pot". This is not your personal ego stroking forum and therapy session to get over your lack of confidence and bed wetting past. If you want to make intelligible contributions to solving this mystery then I will happily read them and show you the respect you may earn from that process. Have a good day !

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI, I think the correct phrase is "sh*t or get off the pot". God only knows how many empty pots are out there with butts still firmly planted on them and straining away! That can start to hurt after a while.

      Delete
    2. Fletcher... With all due respect...Thanks for your elaborate writing... I can already see the desperation in you... In a way, now I feel, you are no different from others... Only a bit refined... I would like to know in which way you have contributed... Are you just here to chase away someone who's writing so many things?... Are you working as JC sir's bouncer?... Tell me, why you are irritated at my writing?... Am I being very impolite?... Why don't you see some point in my every comment?... Did I ask any to leave the blog?... Or do you possess exclusive rights in this Blog?...;pls don't mistake me... Pls note that we can't afford to lose any clue from any quarter... I have been sharing so much and you are not able to make out anything... Is that my fault?... Pls note with this attitude you are getting nowhere... I will definitely watch what progress you make... Many here act like distractors... You just can't coerce anyone this way... Did I ever try to coerce anyone here?...

      Some of your writings were very good and I must admit I enjoyed reading them... That's why I stick around... To learn something new... But did I make a mistake by talking about magnetism?... Was it really a non-sense?... In that case my apologies... Pls pardon me... I was trying to make Marinus understand that I am not a fool as he thinks... That's all... There was nothing against you... for you to get irritated...
      The problem with most here is that they can't make out anything useful from any good hint...
      Infact, the opposite is happening... They misunderstand... Tell me how else do we share... You want I should reveal everything openly and then stand to lose everything?...
      Please be unbiased and work out a modality wherein the real inventor's interest is protected... Instead of chasing away someone this way...
      No offence intended...

      Some of your suggestions are too good... No doubt in that... Better than most here... It has reenforced my opinion... My only prayer is never take it personal and misunderstand me this way...

      Good day...

      Delete
  27. I had no luck. Maybe someone else could try.

    Walt

    ReplyDelete
  28. fb'ed him. But like me doesn't look in fb often. Might take him a while to see message.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The BW forum is online again for anyone who still has interest in it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yeah .. Scott got the fb message and reversed an upgrade he didn't know about that caused the problems.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There's actually no physics disconnect in BW operation... It is well within the laws...

    One reason for misunderstanding is the references to PM...
    Another is our failure or the great delay in solving the mystery...

    There's a unique combination of the mechanical parts that only Bessler was able to put together...
    And, it is very simple... We can't succeed in finding the same because of lack of proper focus...

    ReplyDelete
  32. So you misspoke and are not in fact "ready to compete with anyone as far as the internal mechanism is concerned". You wish to continue with the sermons. Please excuse me if I don't become a fawning acolyte !

    "There's actually no physics disconnect in BW operation... It is well within the laws..."

    Of course it is within Nature's Laws ! The disconnect I mentioned was knowing this, while being told by the scientific community that PM is a pipe dream not possible within the Laws of Physics. And yet it must also conform to them, as they are presented !

    "There's a unique combination of the mechanical parts that only Bessler was able to put together... And, it is very simple... We can't succeed in finding the same because of lack of proper focus..."

    Let me save you some time ! > Words are mine, paraphrased from Bessler in MT.


    1. Nothing can be achieved without B's. connected principle (zusammen gehangten > together hung).

    2. There is a Prime Mover, which is not shown and has to be deduced.

    a. There is a correct handle and construction, to be implemented.

    b. There is something mechanically 'special' behind the StorksBill, to be understood and incorporated within the build.

    These will not exactly be a "NEWSFLASH" to most !

    -f

    ReplyDelete
  33. Fletcher... I am sometimes scared that you may succeed before I finally come out with a model... Because, I have a feeling that you are on the right track... Certain things you mention do make a lot of sense... That's why I have a special regard for you... maybe there's something for me to learn from you... others don't follow you properly or even try to understand what you are trying to say... You are really a true besslerian...

    When you scolded me I didn't feel too bad because there's always something to learn from you... Your concerns are genuine unlike others... I am a bit selfish and egoistic... I admit... Pls pardon me...if I have hurt your feelings... I checked some of your past posts and realise that you have been working very hard... Sometimes, your English is bit hard to understand by me... So, certain things are not clear to me... Maybe, that's why you are not getting the reqd response... If you have not yet figured out the prime mover and storkbill mechanism yet I am afraid you have a long journey ahead... Tell me what's your age?... I am also worried that I may take to the grave what I learnt so far... I am 63 with diabetes and heart condition...

    Storkbill mentioned by you is not clear to me... Prime mover, I can somehow make out...

    Tell me, if you succeed will you give it away without any expectation for the greater good?... Please also bear in mind that Bessler didn't think so... Also, do you think will JC sir also give it away for good cause?... Never... Though I am jealous I am somewhat glad atleast there is one soul making sincere efforts... You...

    Best Wishes...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m always pleased to read Fletcher’s comments and yours too Suresh, even if I don’t always agree with you, at least.

      Thanks fletch, it’s always good to refresh one’s memory about the morsels of information Bessler left for us

      Regarding the storks-bill I might have the design and the way to use it. If I’m right, it is useful but as a clue it is deliberately obscure. Bessler wrote a page or more in DT I think, in which he compared what he referred to as FORM, and the material of which something is made and how it acts. I have taken this as a possible clue to be considered. So use something that might, for instance remind you of a storks-Bill and it’s action but achieve similar results with a slightly different form. I replaced the word FORM in my mind with SHAPE.

      Just speculating.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Suresh, I am still determined to give away the design if and when I succeed, but I’m sanguine about receiving enough financial reward and therefore I don’t worry about patents, licensing etc. I feel that the faster and wider the successful design is broadcast the better.

      JC

      Delete
  34. Yes, Thanks fletch for your clear and concise statements! What does having a "correct handle " mean to you?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi RAF .. AFAIK both JC's earlier published hard copy of MT and the wiki page translations done later were both done by Andrew Witter.

    Therefore I tend to read and consider both if a contextual disparity occurs. I take my hat off to Andrew because B's. hand writing is almost impossible to read for me except for a few words usually. Therefore online translators are not really an accurate contextual option for me for the MT's.

    Anyhoo re MT10 comments .. here is the earlier hard copy translation text.

    "The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I illustrate it very different at the appropriate place and grasp the correct construction."

    .. here is the later wiki entry.

    "This is exactly the previous model, except that the weight-poles are more curved and longer."

    "The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle and construction."

    Online translator (modern German) :

    Hard copy : "grasp the correct construction" > Fassen Sie die richtige Konstruktion

    Wiki : "correct handle and construction" > korrekter GRIFF und Konstruktion

    In this case I can read the German word for Griff (handle) in the B. comments. I have to assume that Andrew updated his translations for a good reason. Since I can see the word for handle then I take this as a physical/mechanical referenced clue, more than the symbolism of "grasp" etc, imo.

    At first impressions MT10 is about a bunch of in-series connected lever weights of the MT9 family/group. They happen to be curve shaped which gets a special mention as being a 'good principle' in both translations. The inner connected lever weights of the next MT11 are also curved fwiw.

    Since MT10 expressly mentions the word "griff" or handle in the context of the in-series connected (and hung together) lever weights then I am under the distinct impression that the 'lever' of the lever-weights is a 'handle' in this context. It pulls downwards !

    We are all familiar with a handle. It is a simple machine and changes Mechanical Advantage. We use them all the time, then and now e.g. thick of extracting a nail from a wall stud with a claw hammer. We apply a force at a distance and rotate around a pivot i.e. we pull down !

    Therefore the physical handle itself is of no great shakes, nor an earth shattering revelation. It's behaviour and usefulness must be modified mechanically imo ! And that would be the literal "correct handle AND construction" requirement. IMO !

    And this relates to the overall mechanical efficiency of the hung-together-lever-weights to be ganged like a JACK and pull down in a coordinated way to perform an important task ! IMO !



    ReplyDelete
  36. If my logic sequence resonates with you in any way then my downstream deductions about a correct handle etc may be worth repeating again.

    Gaffle : https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=169456#169456

    General Theory of Gaffle Use : https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=170358#170358

    The upshot is I deduce that the SB reference is also connected to the correct handle and construction (grasp the correct construction). As does one aspect of the bent arm 'A' variant in MT, being possibly a type of pantagraph. In that a "Gaffle" tool used for loading a cross-bow provides mechanical advantage to draw back the bow-string for cocking.

    Why did I come up with a Gaffle modification to the 'handles' ? Because if you look at the MT9 family of hung-together designs (9,10,11,12,..,14,15,16,.. & 38) they all are presented in physically unobtainable (artificially contrived) lever-weight positions. They are shown in 'iris effect', splayed like a peacocks tail on the descending side.

    But most importantly the topmost lever-weights (lws) are raised upwards and outwards gaining GPE. This cannot physically happen with in-series rope connections between lws as shown by Bessler. The topmost lws will not rise from the rim upwards and outwards as their individual mass overcomes the leverage of the lowermost sets of lws pulling down in concert.

    UNTIL you use a Gaffle and pulley rope subsystem connecting between the in-series lws. Then the leverage factor of the JACK EFFECT is maximised and the lifting of the topmost lws can occur and splay out as depicted, showing the correct handle and construction, IMO.

    Then I ask myself why did B. show this family in this played out way when it's not physically possible as shown ?

    What can be done with this JACK system to gain an advantage ?

    How does the above relate to an absent Prime Mover ?

    ETC ! N.B. I have previously outlined some of my theories and experiments regarding these questions, which evolve, or are discarded, as better information or deductions supersede them.

    You will of course have your own opinions and theories, but perhaps some of what I write makes some sort of sense and logic to you at some level. And the discourse may open other modes of thought.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. -f wrote: "But most importantly the topmost lever-weights (lws) are raised upwards and outwards gaining GPE. This cannot physically happen with in-series rope connections between lws as shown by Bessler."

      That's where the stretched springs attached to each lever come into play. They help supply the extra GPE needed to raise the levers as they near 12:00. B did not include the springs in his drawings but they would have been shown later at the end of MT where he revealed all of his wheel secrets. Too bad we never got to see the end of MT.

      Delete
  37. WOW fletch,Thanks for the detailed reply! By "grasp" and "handle" I was thinking "understand" as seen in MT24: "before one can grasp and correctly understand......." MT 25 is less complex than 24 by 50 percent but why stop there ? In my two drawings I reduce it 50 percent further, thinking of that carpenter's boy. In MT25'quadrant#1 ( clockwise)the horiz. lever acts as a handle pulled down by its shifter weight. In quadrant # 3,I see your "bent arm variant" but with the bent crossbar pointed upward, allowing for the much discussed "scissor" movement. Is this somewhat congruent with your views ?

    ReplyDelete
  38. correction:I meant "bent arm A variant"

    ReplyDelete
  39. @ RAF .. "Is this somewhat congruent with your views ?"

    Before answering your question ..

    I look for consistencies, or for that matter inconsistencies, in B's. writings. Sometimes differences are potentially a deliberate play on words, which we should consider.

    MT24, in both the earlier and later translations says contextually basically the same thing "before one can GRASP and correctly understand ..". Yet, when I read B's. German accompanying notes for MT24 I don't see the word GRIFF (handle) as there is in MT10. So I tend to think that Andrew's updated wiki translation of a literal 'correct handle AND construction' for MT10 (you can make out the German words for AND and CONSTRUCTION) is the more literal and accurate. IINM GRIFF and the English word GRIP / GRASP are similar to the root word GRIFF. .. However in MT24 another word is used for grasp/understand which should have been consistent with MT10 IF grasp was the intended main meaning in MT10. Also it would be strange to say 'grasp the correct construction' when Andrew clearly associates the word 'correct' with the word for handle and not construction.

    Yes I would agree, MT's 24 and 25 have handles, and scissor movements as you deduce. However, is their cross-wheel pull ropes effective in any way to give an advantage ? Not that I can work out ! Is it simple so a carpenters boy could understand it ? Yes ! But IMO is not the correct design because where does the Prime Mover fit in, amongst other things ?

    **I understand that we each have our current favourities that we are working on and thinking hard about. It's a process that is sometimes glacial and hard to shake up.**

    I am simply pointing out that the MT9 family of iris wheels with in-series ganged lws form a proposed JACK EFFECT and contain most of the comments of substance in MT. Therefore I believe that is the type of connected (literal 'together hung') principle B. refers too (sorry, not cross pulls, imo). Via imo my Gaffle Mechanical Advantage altering design where the Gaffle sub-lever is simply a part of a pantagraph (and the bent arm A) fulfilling the 'special about SB's' heads-up, IMO.

    So what might be interesting about MT's 24 & 25 to warrant the below comments ?

    8 mech MT24 : "There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention."

    4 mech MT25 : "There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively."

    IMO, simply that MT24 shows unmistakable handle actions (pulling downwards). That 'fling' the hinge weight outwards and upwards !

    MT25 being half as complex as the previous, imo simply shows/says/suggests that simplicity is best. So a carpenters boy could 'grasp' it ! Or as Karl said to his ministers .. simple to understand and build !

    And that leads me directly to the imo absentee Prime Mover. That MT25 suggests that it is a spectacularly simple arrangement. And that we all have drastically over-thunk it ! It's way more simple than we can literally imagine (in most cases) !

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If all you need to make the MT machines work is that magical "prime mover", then that means it's the prime mover that is really the actual pm machine everyone wants to find. But all we have is ONE mention of it in MT and it might not be some sort of separate machine as some think. Maybe when Bessler referred to a prime mover he was just describing the ABILITY of a mechanism as drawn in MT to move ITSELF and was not referring to some sort of separate machine. For MT15 where he said "From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's SOURCE can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight." he could just have been saying that there's nothing in that MT15 machine that would make it self moving. IOW, "prime mover" is only a property of a particular machine and not some separate machine you attach to a machine to make it also have pm like the prime mover has. A machine either has the prime mover ability or it does not. None of the MT machines have it accept the one at the end that we never got the chance to see.

      jason

      Delete
  40. From MT15 JC hardcopy : "From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's SOURCE can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the OVERBALANCE."

    From MT15 later wiki : "From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's SOURCE can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight."

    1. None of the MT's are runners and can accelerate and self-sustain rotation, including MT15. .. Yet B. specifically mentions and infers in MT15 a mechanical Prime Mover 'arrangement' to transform the wheel into a runner.

    2. MT15 has iris like, splayed effect, in-series lws, that raise up at the top and bottom. It also shows cross-pull tensioners with weights, showing imbalance potential. These are concurrently linked to another OB method, that being radial shifting poles with end weights. Collectively it shows combined OB methods which critically are lifted TOP and BOTTOM simultaneously for an obvious overbalance condition, IF THE LIFTS WERE MECHANICALLY FEASIBLE TO ORCHESTRATE (it seems or is suggestive of)!

    N.B.1. but it is not a runner, and can never be a runner, in it's present condition. Because something is missing as it is, that confers the ability to self-rotate.

    N.B.2. a separate Prime Mover apparatus or arrangement is not, and cannot be a PM structure in and of itself. Only when combined with a type of overbalancing wheel format do they both constitute a runner arrangement. IMO !

    -f

    ReplyDelete
  41. HELLO JOHN COLLINS,
    I NOTICE YOUR YOUTUBE VIDEO ID STARTS OFF WITH "5BW..."
    THAT'S PRETTY COOL
    NUMBER 5 AND THEN BW FOR BESSLER WHEEL
    WAS THAT INTENTIONAL OR COINCIDENCE??????????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what? I can’t remember, it’s been so long since I posted the video, but it seems an amazing coincidence if I didn’t use 5BW as part of the ‘save’ title and yet it got included I the link.
      Thanks for pointing this out!
      JC

      Delete
    2. @JC

      I just took a peek at that url for your youtube video and found the end of it to have something very interesting in it. Part of the end is:

      "...5BWVK..."

      I immediately noticed that it contains Ken B's initials. On his Bessler book's cover he gives his middle initial as "W", so his full initials would be "K.W.B". If you look at that end of the url you will see Ken B's initials written backwards within it as "BW...K"!

      Ken B says that Bessler's wheels used "Y" shaped levers. There's the number "5" in there and also a capital "V" which Bessler liked to use as the Roman numeral with a value of 5. If you multiply the two you get 5 x V = 5 x 5 = 25. What is the 25th letter of the alphabet? It's "Y"!

      Of course this is probably just a coincidence...or is it! I agree that Bessler seemed to like the number 55 and he probably waited for chapter 55 in AP before giving a lot of symbolic clues about his wheels in it. I suspect that he did that on purpose because he knew that 5 x 5 = 25 and the 25th letter of the alphabet is "Y". That could have been his way to telling us, by using the chapter number of 55, that the levers in his wheels were actually "Y" shaped as Ken B claims.

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
  42. Nope... Utterly wrong... I can openly say that the levers' shape in BW is not Y shaped at all... This is nothing but another big distraction...
    If anyone knows the correct lever shape and, is not willing to share the same is not actually a crime... but, misguiding others by giving false information is not good at all... But, what is happening usually in this Blog is entirely different... the person distracting others is tolerated and the person trying to give some clue is chased away... Fantastic logic...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think SoS was amusing himself and not intending to be taken seriously. Perhaps the K stood for Karl, but I definitely reject any reference Ken B!

      JC

      Delete
    2. @JC

      If Ken B's initials of "KWB" showed up in your Bessler video link, then it may have not have been strictly due to a coincidence. I'm a big believer in omens and how they can portend the destinies of individuals and even nations. What is the mathematical probability of a major Bessler researcher's initials, in correct reverse order, just happening to appear in a url for a video on the history of Bessler?! I calculate that there is only a 1 in 17,576 probability of it happening by random chance.

      Aside from possibly giving the shape of the levers in his wheels, I also think there is another message hidden in the number 55.

      Look at those TWO numbers, 5 and 5. Each one is the alphanumeric value for the letter "E" which is the fifth letter of the alphabet. 55 then can be written as "EE". Now add the two alphanumeric values of the letters together to get 5 + 5 = 10. What is the tenth letter of the alphabet? It's "J". Finally, since we have TWO number 5's, that gives us another number which is 2 and also the alphanumeric value for the second letter of the alphabet which is "B".

      We now have four letters: "E, E, J, and B". This is what is known as an "anagram" that must be correctly unscrambled to find its true meaning. If we do that we get "JEEB". Look familiar? It's the initials for Bessler's full name or "Johann Ernst Elias Bessler"! Just another coincidence? I certainly don't think so.

      So, in what was originally supposed to be AP's final chapter, which was numbered 55, Bessler gives us a lot of symbolic clues about how his wheels worked and the chapter number of 55 itself that can be used to obtain the "Y" shape of his wheels' levers as well as attaching Bessler's initials to it all. I think Bessler made sure he originally wrote exactly 55 chapters for AP because he wanted to end with that number to assure that his full name, even though it was numerologically hidden, would forever be associated with the clues in that chapter. It was his way of finally signing his name to the clues that described his invention's secrets. Maybe he discovered that without that particular "Y" shaped lever it was not possible to build a pm wheel? I think that number 55 is indeed a VERY important numerological clue.

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
    3. Oystein will be so pleased you took notes.

      Delete
    4. @Sos
      More of your thought provoking numerology posts for us! Yes the probability of Ken B's initials showing up like they did in John's youtube Bessler video url is small. But it's actually much smaller than you calculated.

      If you had three cookie jars and filled each with 26 scrabble tiles having the letters of the alphabet on them and you pulled one tile out of each jar, then as you calculated the probability of getting the three letters in Ken's initials of KWB would be (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) = 1/17,576. BUT, every time you managed to pull those three letters out of the three jars together (that could take days of effort each time!), you would find that they would have one of six possible orderings (known as "permutations" in math) which would be either KWB, KBW, WKB, BKW, WBK, or BWK. There's only a 1/6 chance of you picking the exact reversed one of BWK in the video's url. That means the actual probability of that particular order of his initials showing up in the url was actually (1/6) x (1/17,576) = 1/105,456.

      You can go farther than that. You showed how the number 5 and letter V had values of 5 each and stood for 55 and you could get the initials of Bessler's full name of out of them. 5 and V are also in that url for John's video. The probability of getting them there AND in the order shown was (1/2) x (1/10) x (1/26) = (1/520). Finally you can get the probability of that 5BWVK showing up in John's video's url as (1/520) x (1/105,456) = 1/54,837,120 !!!

      John actually had a higher probability of playing one combination of numbers in the next drawing and then winning the jackpot with it in most lotteries than he did of seeing those four letters and one number showing up in his video's url in the order they did! Lol!

      I think I'm starting to believe in your omen theory, Sos!

      Delete
    5. Numerology is entertaining but does it have any credibility SoS?
      The characters under analysis are 5BWVK. So here is my take on things. Let’s start with my birth date, 5th February 1945. In the uk we would write that 05.02.45.
      The 5 is there, B is the second letter of the alphabet, so there’s the 2. V can stand for 5 as a Roman numeral. It’s the 22nd letter, 2 x 2 =4. So there’s the 45, the year of my birth. Bessler died in 1745 exactly 200 years before me, a repeat of 45. K is the 11the letter, also 11the month, November the month of Bessler’s death. K also stands for Karl. W is 23rd letter and can also stand for two Vs, or two 5s. The important chapter 55.

      I could go on, there are plenty more ‘coincidences’ , to which you can apply any ‘facts’ to make your argument, but entertaining as it is I doubt if it provides any useful information.

      JC

      Delete
    6. Of course there is also the possibility that I chose the 5BWVK when I saved and/or posted the video to YouTube. I might, well have used the 5 as well as BW, the VK I’m not so sure about.

      JC

      Delete
    7. Looks like John's practicing some numerology of his own!

      His version seems to suggest that he is the one destined to rediscover the secret of Bessler's wheels by using his birthday and year to connect himself up with Bessler. Bessler dying 200 years before John might make one think that John is somehow the reincarnation of Bessler! However, it would have been nice if the end of that URL for his video had the letters J and C in it so his initials were also there.

      I do agree that the number 55 written as EE is an important clue. It's just too much of coincidence that they are Bessler's middle initials. If you add the two 5's you get 10 and if you add that to 55 you get 65. That was the age of Bessler when he died! Could it be he was predicting how long he would live?

      Delete
    8. Exactly anon.13.47, it’s too easy to find numerological connections, IMO there’s nothing in it.

      JC

      Delete
  43. Nope... All people attempt to connect the dots to a Bessler PM runner. Most have opinions, but not many show how those dots line up or are connected for them in their narrative. So that others can decide if there is any truth and substance to them.

    You SK are an offerer of an opinion!

    Ken B. finds and connects his dots in his unique way to frame his narrative and logic. It is available for each of us to examine and decide if we agree with his logic and deductions. He may be right or he may be wrong ultimately. But at least he presents more substance than an opinion dressed as a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We did that. And it's a non-runner. Substantially wrong and mostly fiction. Produced, written and and still promoted, ad nauseam, to earn some money. Not to contribute to the solution.

      Delete
    2. "We" determined it's a non-runner? Did any of "we" ever actually accurately build or sim it yet to determine that? Without that the opinions of "we" are really of little value. After a few more years of "we" all banging their heads against the granite wall of the Bessler wheel mystery and only getting throbbing headaches as a result don't be too surprised when you see "we" turning to Ken's wheel design for one last chance at a successful build.

      Delete
  44. So anecdotally the court of public opinion here and at BW.com is that KB is way off base. He doubles down in this blog in the belief that he is right and will eventually be vindicated if he can promote his ideas and his book sales until someone takes it seriously, and builds his POP for him to prove it as fact and not fiction.

    IMO "IMO" goes a long way! Whenever I read SK, SG, or KB I automatically in my mind insert an "IMO" around every paragraph. None of them apparently can bring themselves to include it or preface their statements with it. When no proof or substantiation is offered to promote opinion to quasi fact! That tells me about their states of mind and that their 'belief' is strong. One mans belief is not another mans proof, and life experience tells us that the scientific principle requires proof!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Whenever I read SK, SG, or KB I automatically in my mind insert an "IMO" around every paragraph."

      You forgot to put JC and F in that list! Lol!

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure I fully agree with your statement Anon 20:52. What Ken has going for him is long term hands on work and decoding of Bessler's portraits. He has also shared a lot of details on how he came to his conclusions. To me, this gives him more credibility that those simply claiming to know what is or isn't right about his work, and share nothing. I need to see the same level of effort from his distractors before I will take their comments seriously. Even JC, with all his boasting over the years, has given little in the way of proof as to what let him to his conclusions, and that could be why his design failed in the end - lack or sound tangible proof.

      I'm not a Ken fan boy by any means, but I do see a great disparity in work between those that do, and those that simply say that they do. You also have to kind of respect the guy for all he has done and shown, even if you don't agree with his findings. You can't say that for too many others.

      Delete
    3. I have his book and the amount of detail he provides in it is truly amazing. He claims it all comes from the two DT portraits. I still haven't read to the last part where he shows the clues in the portraits and how he uses them to get the sizes of the various parts used inside of one of Bessler's wheels. It seems like that would be impossible to do but somehow he managed to do it.

      Delete
  45. Nah... clean your specs lol. Some posters say "I think" or "imo" on a regular basis. The 3 above are not familiar with those.

    ReplyDelete
  46. A BW or PM inventor goes through a few difficult stages before he is finished with his dream project:

    1) getting the idea...
    2) Developing it...
    3) facing failure after failure...
    4) confronting the critizisms...
    5) getting the right tools and spares...
    6) safeguarding the secret...
    7) garnering support from scientists...
    8) financial difficulties family uncooperation
    9) finding enough time...
    10) constant misguiding and destractions...
    11) convincing others...
    12) after succuss marketing or patenting it...
    13) difficulty in getting recognition and gain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suresh, you are making it way too big.

      1) Getting the idea.
      2) Build it or sim it.
      3) If it is not working start again at 1.
      4) Tell the world or get a patent.

      I think you are stuck at 1. Just like me, and everybody else.
      Cheer up! Persistence will pay off. But, there's no guarantee.

      Delete
    2. No mention of building a mathematical model. If you can do this, you prove your case much better that any SIM can.

      Delete
    3. Marinus... I am actually struck at No. 2...

      Building it...

      Delete
  47. fletch,What place do springs have( if any) in your movement? Where would you use them in M.T.25 ? I agree with your view that the solution must be breathtakingly simple !---R.

    ReplyDelete
  48. It looked great on paper...too bad he couldn't sim it first...

    https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/missing-inventor-mystery-the-perpetual-motion-machine-invented-by-mr-picture-id1064122484?s=612x612

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that may be a photo that was taken at the 1933 to 1934 Chicago World's Fair. They had a building there named the "Hall of Science of a Century of Progress" showing off several supposedly working perpetual motion devices to the public. This one looks like the classic flip over arm type overbalanced wheel, but it used some tricky mechanics to make the levers fold up to move their end weights closer to the hub just before the weights went over the top of the hub. Once on the descending side, the arms unfolded and the weights then move out farther from the hub. It was probably hoaxed using an electric motor that the public did not see. Maybe the inventor exhibited it and thought that hoaxing it was okay because with some more refinements he was sure that he could eventually make it work without the motor?

      jason

      Delete
  49. @ RAF .. 14:58

    "fletch, what place do springs have (if any) in your movement ? Where would you use them in M.T.25 ? I agree with your view that the solution must be breathtakingly simple ! ---R."

    Springs in my movement ? None ! Unfortunately ! Numerous sims of the MT9 family with inter-springs showed no material benefit, for me. Not from lack of trying. I believe that the spring noise Wolff heard was related to a catch or latch and release method in B's. two-way Merseburg wheel where it was heard (Occam's Razor). - Unlike KB I do not believe springs are the "Prime Mover" that is missing. And I make the observation that KB's sims categorically would not work if springs were not present. Not a single researcher would doubt that imo. Therefore by their inclusion they are the single ingredient 'game changer' that he claims turns his sim into a runner (tho I entirely disagree that it is a bona fide runner for reasons given many times). So I would say his 'springs' could rightly be called KB's Prime Mover element, suggested by B as absent in at least MT15.

    Where would I use springs in MT25 ? I can't see where their use would be beneficial in the long run ! I can only tell you of my experiences with springs RAF. Experience gained with thousands of sims, and some real world builds over the years. Springs are conservative. Yes, you can load them with elastic potential energy and release it later as KE to aid a lw movement to create OB, for example. But at some time the spring must be cocked again, to replenish that EPE. And my experience tells me that the lw is delayed in moving somewhere else also affecting OB. So their is a functional loss, which equals the functional gain (Netting Out). ATEOTD Springs IMO are a ZERO SUM GAME !

    ................

    Yes, solution breathtakingly simple is a good description. .. For me I suspect the Prime Mover itself is breathtakingly simple, and how the Wheel and Prime Mover structures and arrangements must interact, in concert, to produce a runner. Take one away and the wheel no-spinny !

    I also am quite sure at this point that springs have no place of substance in that relationship, for me, tho I sense that you do, sorry !

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right that Ken B's Bessler wheel design cannot work without the springs. The ones from 9:00 to 3:00 appear to be critically necessary to keeping the levers in an overbalanced condition. They are "cocked" as each lever moves between 6:00 and 9:00.

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
  50. Ken... You wouldn't be saying this if you have an inkling of the inner mechanism... For they do not follow normal path...

    Fletcher is right... You are just defending your idea which everyone knows is futile...

    If at all springs are to deployed it is for speeding up the swing of the levers...

    ReplyDelete
  51. John, Would you agree that very few P.M designs use springs? Thanks.--R.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Richard - I don’t see the need for springs in Bessler’s wheel except for three possible situations. One might be to absorb the impact of a falling weighted lever, reducing the effect of impact; second to help keep cord/chain/wire taught when due the lever movement they become temporarily slack and three, to help reduce lateral motion in a weighted lever.

      JC

      Delete
    2. "I don’t see the need for springs in Bessler’s wheel except for three possible situations."

      Maybe there's a fourth need you haven't considered yet that you must to finally find your runner?

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous22 January 2021 at 22:42
      Here's John's list:
      1. absorb impact of falling lever
      2. reduce effect of impact
      3. reduce lateral motion of lever
      The first two are the same, and seem to me useless in regards to the principle of the mechanism
      The third doesn't make sense to me mechanically speaking, with all my experimentations with levers on springs, the springs have to be extremely precise or they tend to add to the unwanted lateral yanking off to the side
      So here's my list in accordance with the laws of physics and how they may relate to the actual principle
      1. springs store energy for use later on
      if a lever falls at one point in the wheel, and you wan to use that energy to raise another lever later on, you have to use springs
      2. springs achieve maximum velocity per energy
      this is very simple to demonstrate, if you have two equal weights on a balance beam, and move one out a little further, the beam will very slowly turn to achieve equilibrium; but if the same falling energy of the weight going down was put into a spring, and the spring hoisted the other weight, the rising weight would shoot up very fast
      3. springs can multiply the force by double
      if a falling weighted lever has a certain amount of force, calculated by the weight and distance of the lever, you can charge up a spring with the falling weight, and cause the maximum force of the spring to be double that of the lever; the trick is due to the fact that the minimum force of the spring is 0, so it evens out; but this extra force at the start enables much more weight to be lifted up at lightning speed, which cannot be achieved without the spring
      4. springs can be pretensioned
      this is an addition to #3, but springs can be "pretensioned" so that the force remains rather steady through its charge and discharge length; however, the double force boost will not be present
      5. springs are simple harmonic oscillators
      as crazy as it sounds, springs with weights act like weighted pendulums - check out simple harmonic oscillators

      Delete
    4. Perhaps my response should have been more detailed, but it was a simple question. I don’t see the need for springs. Unless you need one to absorb impact to reduced banging sound and to reduce any potential unwanted effect such as backwards jerk, and to reduce lateral movement which is something I use it for because of the close proximity of passing levers which can snag each other.

      JC

      Delete
  52. Ken, it is to be understood we are dealing with heavy weights... And also, these weights have to be lifted continuously in every cycle... Such a constant stretch and pull would render a spring useless soon... So a spring based pm would not succeed in the long run... Common sense tells this... Usage of springs is thought out by such people who are unable to figure out the real mechanism that is ideal for BW or PMs... The ingenuity lies in using gravity and other forces to aid the movement in such a way so that a spring doesn't play the main role...

    Good day...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Such a constant stretch and pull would render a spring useless soon...So a spring based pm would not succeed in the long run...Common sense tells this... "

      The durability of a spring depends on the steel alloy used in the spring and how much the spring is compressed or stretched. The return springs used on the intake and exhaust valves of an idling automobile engine can each be compressed and expanded 2,000 times per minute or 33 times per second and will work fine after years of constant use. That rate will shoot way up as the engine speed is increased. There's actually more risk of the valves wearing out before their return springs do.

      Delete
    2. Once again SK shows us his ignorance of simple mechanisms but still wants us to believe he knows how Bessler's wheels really worked. Lol!

      Delete

Bessler’s Wheel in the Future.

When someone finds the solution to Bessler’s wheel I don’t know how, or even if, it will affect the world we live in, but I do know that con...