Saturday, 6 March 2021

We Perpetual Motionists Dare to Dream the Impossible.

Why do we lay ourselves open to ridicule? We have been taught that what we seek is an impossible dream. Thousands of people have tried to find the answer to making a perpetual motion machine but failed ... apparently.  It’s seen potentially as a labour saving device - a boon to mankind.  Instinctively we all know that a weight driven wheel is possible, despite going against everything we’ve been taught. 

But what, in the end, is it that we seek? We would like to provide an alternative way of producing electricity that didn’t have to rely on the sun, the wind or the tides; that was clean and cheap - but is there more? Is it fame or fortune or the knowledge that we were all right and the experts, scientists, teachers, sceptics, cynics and critics were wrong.  Will we be heroes if we succeed? The pleasure to be derived from seeing the look of disbelief, the swift u-turns, the anger, the arguments of those who continued to reject the evidence and the eventual, albeit reluctant, acceptance of the evidence would be so overwhelming as to be beyond anything that has happened in our lives.

This would not be just for ourselves but also an acknowledgement of the efforts of all those thousands of people (I was going to say ‘men and women’, but there seems little evidence that women have ever taken an interest in pursuing  this apparent delusion) of people who over the centuries have sought to find the solution to this puzzle. Among those there have been some of celebrity status, but they have always been reluctant to express their willingness to admit their curiosity to find the answer to the perennial question, is a perpetual motion machine possible?

Those who deny Bessler’s wheel was genuine and those who explain why it was perfectly possible, are absolute opposites.  The traditional view is that such machines are closed systems and will quickly exhaust any energy stored within. You all know my view on the subject; since they can’t be closed systems because they would clearly be impossible, they must be open to an exterior source of energy. We start from the fact that we believe in Johann Bessler and his wheel, whereas the sceptics believe he was a fake.

Unless someone can prove Bessler and his machines were genuine there can never be a satisfactory conclusion to our search.  “Proof” exists and is widely taught that weight-driven perpetual motion machines cannot be made, but there is a saying, “you can’t prove a negative”, so does that mean you can’t prove that Bessler’s wheel was impossible?  On the other hand the reaction we all experience is the opposite, “prove it!”  That’s what they tell us, and they are right, no amount of theorising will convince anyone against three hundred years and more of determined denial.

They tell us that the proof that such machines are impossible is already out there and accepted so why do we continue to butt our heads against the wall of scepticism?  Because we prefer to dream the impossible.  There is an old saying written in various ways, which I learned long ago, which says, “the difficult we will do immediately; the impossible will take a little longer”. I think it sums up our approach to this puzzle.

JC


122 comments:

  1. The first wheels were created in Mesopotamia around 3500 BC and were used as potter's wheels. It took them another 300 years before someone used them to make a chariot. Probably only a few months after that someone was trying to make one of them self-moving by attaching shifting weights to its rim. We've been at it for 5500 years so far! We are really only sure of one person who was successful...Bessler! He proved it was possible. The search must continue...

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Thousands of people have tried to find the answer to making a perpetual motion machine but failed ... Apparently.”

    And why did they fail ? Ignorance! Sorry! No offense meant

    John, clearly you refer to PM, but this “since they can’t be closed systems because they would clearly be impossible, they must be open to an exterior source of energy” clearly shows you mean Over Unity.
    How do you know it must be an open system?
    PM definition from Britannica: “Perpetual motion, the action of a device that, once set in motion, would continue in motion forever, with no additional energy required to maintain it. Such devices are impossible on grounds stated by the first and second laws of thermodynamics”
    Disregard the last sentence because it refers to Over Unity and not PM.
    The law of conservation of energy says that while energy can turn from one kind into another, the total amount of energy doesn't change. This law applies only to closed system and in closed system it is constant. Therefore energy in closed system cannot be exhausted. I can assure you PM is a closed system.
    I encourage you to read this again:
    Anon 9 February 2021 at 20:47
    Start from this: “But as we all know there are some problems.”
    And then
    Anon 24 February 2021 at 12:05
    Start from this: “In order to clearly explain what that means…”
    Have a nice day.

    Batteries not required

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all have our own opinions and mine is that you cannot have a continuously rotating wheel without a source of continuous energy. The energy must come from outside the wheel because there is no way of tapping any energy which is within the wheel. If you consider gravity as permeating everything then you could argue that gravity is within the wheel, as well as outside it, but how do you tap it? The weights lie within the wheel and are subject to gravity and the weights fall inside the wheel, so perhaps you could argue that the energy comes from within the wheel, but that, to my mind is semantics but if that works for you then that’s fine.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I would have read your references but unfortunately I could not find them.

      JC

      Delete
    3. John,
      belief it or not, this definition from Britannica is very accurate, it states “…would continue in motion forever, with no additional energy required to maintain it…”
      We all have our opinions, but what are they based on, someone else’s opinions? opinions don’t have to be based on facts, that is why they called opinions, it is you personal view, (nothing wrong with that) and it might not be a fact, just an opinion.

      Here are the references:

      Anon 9 February 2021 at 20:47

      But as we all know there are some problems. One of them is that there are kooks on both sides of the isle, Chasers believe he did it (and rightly so) but can’t prove it, BigWigs (a.k.a scientist, better kind of kooks) they know it is impossible and they think they proved it, well they wrong. Both sides, while referring to Perpetual Motion they actually mean Over Unity, some chasers are aware of it (this are kooks), some are not, no BigWig is. All evidence they show, is against OU not PM. Now what fallows it is not an advice, but something to reflect on.
      Drop the word “machine” from the name PM, by definition all machines no matter how small require outside source of energy to function, PM does not (neither Bessler’s wheels did). Therefore it is not a machine, which implies also stop looking for source of energy to “power” PM, it does not exist. Stop that never ending debate: is gravity force or energy, it is what it is, and it will be what it is after you determine what it is, you can’t use it now, you will not be able to use it then

      And Anon 24 February 2021 at 12:05

      In order to clearly explain what that means I have to give you refreshment crash course of “basic physics”, I will use good old pendulum, not gravity pendulum or gravity enabled pendulum, just pendulum slightly modified. Imagine a wheel with only one spoke. At the junction of the spoke and rim, there is attached steel bearing ball (bob). For testing purposes physics allow to remove some forces, so I will remove air resistance and friction to avoid any energy losses. Gravity stays of course. Now let’s pull the bob to 3 o’clock and let it go, from 3 to 6 all PE (100%) will be converted to KE, from 6 to 9 all the KE (100%) will be converted to PE. From 9 to 6 PE to KE from 6 to 3 KE to PE. Along with the swinging bob the wheel would turn, once to the left and then to right back to left and so on.
      Theoretically the bob would swing and the wheel turn forever
      Now there are some questions that need to be asked, in no particular order:
      How much energy did the bob use?
      How much energy did the bob create?
      Where the energy comes form or what is the source of that energy?
      What powers the bob and wheel?
      Find this answers, try to understand their meaning and they will bring you so much closer to understanding of what the real, true PM is.
      Anyone who claims discovery, rediscovery of PM must know answers to this questions, there is no other way around. Does KB and his enthusiasts know them? I don’t think so.
      In the meantime the bob keeps swinging, and swinging and…

      Have nice day

      BNR

      Delete
    4. BNR wrote "Where the energy comes form or what is the source of that energy?...Does KB and his enthusiasts know them?"

      KB insists that all of the mechanical energy released by B's wheels came solely from the masses of their weights, but the process needed gravity to happen. If he is right that one of B's wheels could also work in a spinning centrifuge, then that would prove that gravity wasn't really necessary and any forces applied to all of the weights in the same direction inside of a wheel's drum should also make the process work. If one can use the forces of magnets, then he could make one of B's wheels work without gravity or CF. In fact, unlike B's wheels such a magnet enabled wheel could run in any orientation even with its axle vertical.

      Delete
    5. Wrong answer Ken.

      Delete
    6. "All possible things exist" - G. Leibniz.
      In my opinion :
      Anon 23:41's accuracy and John's stubbornness are real strengths. I would like to point out that these are still only the opinions of John and Anon. Whoever will solve Bessler's secret will open a new path for science. In my opinion, the truth is outside, although it is not devoid of the truth inside. Neither of you can be right PM or OU. It reminds me of Bessler, who defends the truth about the structure he built, that the PM exists, although it is driven by the consensus of both. You form a tandem of stubborn Lords, each sticking to his vision. For the same reason John rejects God as you reject the external energy source to power the PM. As always, Bessler wins and smiles mysteriously.

      Delete
  3. And just when you thought pm machines couldn't get any weirder, there's this one:

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this fake is being worked by a thin black thread attached to the right side of the thing. You can't see that thread in the video though. It's being pulled at the right moment by an accomplice off camera.

      Delete
  4. I am sure most people looking in to this subject , are actually very aware of what the laws state , and how reality "seems" to dictate that this is impossible , and what we as humanity came to learn through the collected research and experiments of science through the ages.

    However people are just people , non are all knowing and complete in full understanding.
    If we knew it all already , we would have no need for science.

    It is not that people are driven by false conceptions of reality , because nothing within our current understanding has been verified to be false of yet , however imo , i think some people are driven by the need to solve/resolve/create/develope/determine for the benefit of mankind , knowledge or achievement , science.

    What is common among some of us , is the notion that "something" , just might perhaps be possible , given that "something" else might be overlooked or in error ; however small the conceptual percentage of "possibly being in error" may be , which sparks the need to pull apart this subject piece by piece .

    So it is not that people who research this subject are devoid of brain cells , there could perhaps be "something" missing from our current scientific understanding of the subject , however remotely possible or unrealistic it may seem .

    What ever it is that contributes to a person's own personal interest in this subject , if it were to be possible to succeed , mankind would benefit .

    -JB

    ReplyDelete
  5. THE WHEEL IS DRIVEN FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE OF ENERGY AND THAT OUTSIDE SOURCE OF ENERGY IS GRAVITY..... vote A for Agree D for Disagree

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what it will prove? Two wrongs don't make one right. Gravity is not source of energy, never was and never will be. It is a force, however force can be converted into energy. My vote is D

      BNR

      Delete
    2. Another D vote from me.

      Delete
    3. If B's wheels had outside energy source they would be no different than water or wind mill. To be pm they had to have the energy inside of them. I vote for D.

      Delete
    4. To comply with the laws of physics they have to have an outside source of energy - and the only alternative is to dream up some imaginary system which can recreate all that Bessler’s did, but which is unknown to the world of physics. Gravity is indeed a force and like water and wind is and all three move objects, I.e. weights. So A.

      JC

      Delete
    5. I would vote for "D" because if you don't have the weights you don't have a pm wheel giving out energy. Those weights were all inside of a wheel's drum. Also one of his wheels might work without the gravity using just centrifugal forces, but even then no weights means no energy from a wheel.

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
  6. Partly A...

    BW is sustained by several factors imho... One of them is Gravity... And another is the design factor... And also, every other force or phenomena that is involved when a wheel of this nature spins...

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Gravity is indeed a force and like water and wind is and all three move objects, I.e. weights. So A."

    John please don't take it as personal attack or attempt to down you
    A small correction is due here. You can't compare gravity to water or wind, water has mass, wind is a difference in air pressure, in other words wind is caused by moving air masses, air has mass, gravity doesn't have mass. Gravity will not move an object sitting on a flat surface, water in a lake cannot be used to move or power anything, The moving power of water is coused by gravity and only if there is difference in hight between entry of the water and its exit.

    BNR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you’re not correcting me and I have argued about the similarities and the differences between the affect of moving water and the wind and gravity for more years than I can count - and yes you are right. But my point was that gravity does make objects of mass fall, IOW move downwards - in the direction of the force. The wind moves things in the direction it flows as does water. It’s that point I’m trying to get across. I used to describe the interactions between each force and the medium it is acting on and tried to make people consider that it is the immediate locality of the interaction that counts. But in the end I know this is just another unprovable theory without a working wheel.

      JC

      Delete
    2. "...my point was that gravity does make objects of mass fall, IOW move downwards..."

      It's just too bad that it does not also make equal masses rise a little higher...then we might be getting somewhere!

      Delete
    3. No he didn't because his weights had to rise and fall through the same distance inside drums.

      Delete
    4. That is the age old problem and yet Bessler must have overcome it because his wheel worked.

      JC

      Delete
    5. Someone mentioned earlier that the key may be to finding a way to make the falling weights apply a greater force on the wheel than the force required to raise them back to their original height. In this way, the weights fall and raise the same distance. I can find no other explanation considering the height equivalence.

      Delete
  8. We may never be able to definitively prove the Bessler Wheel was a genuine PM machine unless someone can decipher his writings and find specific designs or design instructions, but we can prove PM by finding a solution (any solution).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B may have indeed found "a solution" but the jury is out on whether it is a runner and is a genuine Bessler Wheel.

      Seeing figures in inkblots is the best way I can describe Ken's approach to finding a solution in the two Bessler portraits. I can barely understand the logic he uses but this does not diminish his work or findings. Hopefully someone will be able to build a working wheel to prove the design. Until then the claim of a runner cannot be proven.

      Delete
    2. Looks like John deleted that comment above which provided a link to Ken's youtube video of his wheel. I think John is trying to suppress anyone knowing that design exists because, unfortunately, John wasn't the one who found it. He'll probably also delete me for giving that link to his video again for those who have not seen it yet, but here goes anyway:

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

      The "Bessler - Behrendt Wheel" is basically just an overbalanced wheel that uses stretched springs to maintain its overbalanced condition and you have to study it carefully to realize what's actually happening as it turns. The two levers and their weights leaving 9:00 and 10:30 are being constantly lifted by the five other levers leaving 6:00, 7:30, 12:00, 1:30, and 3:00 whose weights are all dropping. Meanwhile the lever leaving 4:30 just sits on its drum stop waiting its turn to get involved after it reaches 6:00. Without its network of cords none of this would be possible. I assume these cords are that "connectedness principle" Bessler referred to in MT. The important thing is that Ken's design does seem to maintain its overbalance as the wheel turns and isn't that what we're all trying to achieve?

      Delete
    3. Anon 19:40 said:
      "The important thing is that Ken's design does seem to maintain its overbalance as the wheel turns and isn't that what we're all trying to achieve?"

      I agree 100%, but isn't Ken suggesting there is some type of energy radiation and absorption going on and that results in PM? If this is the case, then Ken is not suggesting simple overbalance is the cause of rotation. Maybe I misread his posts though. Feel free to correct me.

      Delete
    4. Ken, does this looks familiar?

      I've already seen your movie. It shows the machine you introduced in your book. I bought it on Google Play last year. It is interesting and contains a lot of information about Bessler that was not found in other sources. The design of your engine, as described there - although it somehow works on simulation - I consider to be wrong, inconsistent with what the information from Bessler suggests. The fundamental error is that the same weights are involved in two conflicting functions, which I refer to as "control function" and "work function". In practice, this means accumulating actions and reactions within the same mass. Forcing the same mass to do work at the expense of energy that it does not possess and that it is expected to draw from itself or from other masses that are in the same energetic situation. This balances to zero, generates no traffic. Therefore, any machine in which this mistake is made does not work or works poorly - only idling, no load. The active version of the gravity engine should operate according to the same principles as electronic generators: internal imbalance, presence of positive feedback, possibly the presence of hysteresis controlling certain oscillation parameters and the oscillation amplifier. Everything has to be matched to the operation of the gravity feed. For the passive version of the engine, internal imbalance and passive feedback are sufficient. I developed such a passive motor a few years ago. I haven't built a model of it yet, so it's not entirely sure it will work. Maybe this year I will finally do it."

      It is a comment regarding your "Bessler solution" from someone who actually bought and read your book.
      Have a nice day

      BNR

      Delete
    5. Another reason I am not interested in the KW (Ken's Wheel) is because the output is so feeble it is not worthy of consideration. This isn't my finding but a statement directly from Ken himself. Even if it were a working design, it would be so weak that it would be virtually worthless, so why even bother. Time would be better spent searching for a more robust solution, something that can be used by home owners and industry.

      Delete
    6. anon 19:49 wrote: "... but isn't Ken suggesting there is some type of energy radiation and absorption going on and that results in PM?"

      As I understand it, there are no radiations or nuclear reactions involved in making Ken's version of Bessler's wheels rotate. The design just manages to stay overbalanced as it turns which then forces descending side weights to drop faster than the ascending side weights rise through the same vertical distance. That causes a continuous imbalance between the rates at which descending side weights lose GPE and the ascending side weights gain GPE. The descending side weights are always losing a little more GPE that increases the Rot KE of the wheel than the ascending side weights are gaining GPE which decreases the Rot KE of the wheel. As a result of this small difference there is a continuous net increase in the Rot KE of the wheel which makes it accelerate.

      That extra Rot KE that appears, however, has to be paid for by a slow loss of mass of the weights or actually all of the electrons, protons, and neutrons in the atoms of lead in the weights. Ken claims that is justified by that Einstein equation which says energy and mass are the same thing. If one part of a system gains energy or mass (like the entire wheel gaining some rotational kinetic energy), then another part must lose energy or mass (like the weights losing a very small amount of their original mass).


      @anon 22:07

      Ken has admitted that the torque produced by that 3 foot diameter wheel design he found is very low. That also describes that little 3 foot diameter wheel that Bessler first constructed which he said could "barely move itself" along. It's no secret. In Ken's little wheel, the CoG of the eight weights is probably only about a fraction of an inch away from an imaginary vertical line passed down through the exact center of its axle. But, the wheel seems to keep its CoG offset there as it turns. If a real version of it is ever constructed and its bearings are well lubed, then it might need minutes to finally reach that speed of 60 rpm's that Bessler mentioned his first wheel did.

      As with Bessler, this wheel could be a small start to give builders a general direction to work in. If larger versions are ever constructed they will be more powerful, but still "weak" and requiring minutes to reach maximum speed. I think Ken's hoping that the design can be improved so its CoG is moved farther from the axle which will increase torque and power output. Every design I've ever seen that tried to locate an OB wheel's CoG out to a far horizontal distance away from the center of an axle never worked. It's apparently a nearly impossible thing to do successfully.

      FAWK that design Ken found may be the most powerful one that these wheels can ever have. If so, then they will always just remain mechanical curiosities without any practical use for electrical power generation. They would be like that radiometer invented by Sir William Crookes back in 1873. Here's a short video showing one of them spinning away:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF4MDoIbgcs

      If Bessler had invented one of these and somehow made a small wheel spin with it, but kept its inner mechanism a secret (maybe covering it with a thin white cloth that still let some light in but hid the inner mechanism from view), the skeptics of his day would still have dismissed it as a hoax and him as a con artist. Everything can seem like a hoax until it's explained in detail which unfortunately Bessler chose not to do (unless you believe Ken's claim that he did reveal all using about two dozen clues that he hid in the two DT portraits!).

      Delete
    7. anon 01:54 wrote:

      "The descending side weights are always losing a little more GPE that increases the Rot KE of the wheel than the ascending side weights are gaining GPE which decreases the Rot KE of the wheel. As a result of this small difference there is a continuous net increase in the Rot KE of the wheel which makes it accelerate."

      That is a very interesting concept that I've never seen discussed anywhere before. Is there any actual proof that this happens in an OB wheel? How could it happen in a wheel with weights on both sides dropping and then rising through the same vertical distance?

      jason

      Delete
    8. It's complete nonsense. First he says that the rates are different. Then he confuses his units and says the GPE is different. As we all know GPE is mgh. Dependent only on vertical height which is the same on both ascending and descending sides of the axle. m and g are constants, and in this case so is h.

      Delete
    9. @anon 23:56

      No, anon 01:54 actually said: "That causes a continuous imbalance between the rates at which descending side weights lose GPE and the ascending side weights gain GPE."

      He's talking about the rate of decrease in GPE of the descending side weights being slightly larger than the rate of increase in the GPE of the ascending side weights and that difference is always maintained as an OB wheel turns IF it stays OB while it turns. If the weights in a wheel can do that then the wheel should constantly speed up and would appear to do so without a power source as that little extra GPE lost by the descending side weights is turned into extra rotational kinetic energy by the wheel.

      Delete
    10. Galileo would disagree with KB. At any vertical height GPE lost = KET gained, or mgh = m0.5v^2

      For those wondering what KB is talking about i.e. the advantage of rates, search Google for brachistochrone+problem

      Delete
    11. "Galileo would disagree with KB." Too bad Galileo never found a design for a working pm wheel, but he probably tried and was too embarrassed by his failure to admit it. I can agree, however, that if one can figure out how to make the descending weights lose more gpe than the rising weights gain gpe, then that extra lost gpe has to go somewhere and a wheel using it to pick up speed sounds possible to me.

      Delete
  9. Ken, I really like your sense of humor!

    BNR

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the ongoing bustle, we seem to be forgetting or just ignoring a basic question... Why no one is able to successfully come up with what Bessler invented?... Perhaps, there is a reason deeply hidden from our worldly sight... There could be a subtle involvement of life's intricacies which we often rubbish it off...

    300 years period is a very long time gap... If the BW design is so simple and the power source is just Gravity then why it is beyond our reach for so long?...

    I have an explanation here... Life is not just a single span of 70 or 90 years or so we usually consider... It goes on forever... We don't completely perish at death... It is just a transformation of physical embodiment... The essential part of life remains the same... The soul... When it is born again in a different body the same karmic account continues... There are strong evidences available... Bessler's subtle mind will definitely reappear in a different body and reinvent the wheel... And till then the wheel is going to be out of reach of others... The long delay is proof enough... The wisest thing would be to look for who amongst us is Bessler... This may sound ridiculous but actually in my opinion it is not so... I have probed deep enough to learn this...

    The very fact we are facing failure after failure and still not able to figure out even his most simple clue indicates that this great invention is actually reserved for the real Bessler...

    There are other supporting theories available but this comment would get too long..

    ReplyDelete
  11. Despite the remarks above which criticised me for deleting the comment which included a link to Ken B’s video, I did so because in my opinion his whole project is nothing but a scam to promote his book.

    I remain surprised that anyone would take his description of the clues he claims to have found and interpreted as anything but pure imagination and which is invisible to anyone else with more than two brain cells. His wheel concept bares no comparison to Bessler’s, the output is minimal, the design over-complicated, the friction involved would probably cause it to remain immovable and the mere inclusion of no less than 40 connecting strings utterly ridiculous.

    That is why I got fed up with people, some of whom are actually Ken himself, promoting this entire fiasco, purely for his benefit, in my blog. I’ve suggested that he could have his own blog, but no, he insists on using mine.

    If someone, anyone, would produce a working model based on his design, I would welcome it with open arms, promote it myself right here, but it ain’t going to happen ever! There you are, you read it here! Get building guys - and while you’re wasting your time I’ll keep working on a real design based on real clues.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “That is why I got fed up with people, some of whom are actually Ken himself”

      Wrong, not “some of whom” but all of whom are Ken, if I were you I wouldn’t bother deleting anything from Ken, if Ken forgets to add link to his “great discovery” video, I would do it myself with this caption : “MAKE SURE YOU READ ALL COMMENTS FROM KEN B. BELOW THE VIDEO”
      I don’t know what KB thinks, I can only assume and I assume he thinks he is running the greatest promotion of his book, in fact this is the worst book promotion I have ever seen in my life, every time Ken comments, he drives a huge nail through his very own book, killing it. Don’t get mad, get even. I know, its nasty, but…

      Delete
    2. Yes I think they are all Ken, because his style of writing is easily detected. I once suggested he suffered from logorrhoea, extreme verbosity or loquacity. His book provides a perfect example, 800 pages or so could be condensed to 300 without losing the main thread. He loves his prose but is not aware that his readers, becoming bored, will skip forward to something that looks more interesting.

      JC

      Delete
    3. I totally agree!

      Delete
    4. Yellow Sir too had made it clear that Ken is suffering from some mental illness...

      My greatest worry here is that our mission of reinventing BW could be marred by Ken with his constant fake News on BW...

      I can't think of any way to protect our efforts here from Ken intervention...

      Finding a solution for be would be far easier than trying to find a way to get be rid of Ken menace... Because he is so unyielding... The very charm of Bessler be wheel adventure is lost due to this Ken effect...

      Delete
    5. "I can't think of any way to protect our efforts here from Ken intervention..."

      What do you mean by that? What intervention?
      Read this one more time: Anonymous9 March 2021 at 09:47

      Delete
    6. I'm not convinced that any of the comments here are from Ken B. Posters are mentioning his wheel and book but that could only be because they finally found some answers in them that they weren't getting anywhere else. So far, he's the only guy I know who's given a source for the energy Bessler's wheels produced that makes some sense. He has a design with a sim that shows it works and it explains a lot of those obvious clues Bessler gave in his own books. Could that just be a coincidence? He claims and published dozens of previously unknown clues in Bessler's writings. What has anyone else produced?

      Other than John rounding up and having Bessler's writings translated into readable English decades ago and finally revealing a nonrunning design last year after being begged to do so for years, others have mostly spent that time filling up server hard drives with their various babblings, insults, and pretendings of having superior knowledge of Bessler's wheels. If Ken B. has found the secret to Bessler's wheels then I welcome such a discovery as I would from anyone who makes that claim and actually SHOWS us something. At least he gave us something that is new to work with and that looks promising.

      Ken, if it is you making all sorts of anonymous posts here then please keep it up because at least they give us something to think about that is different from the usual useless dribble that fills up places like this. It's gotten so bad over at BW forum that I don't even bother visiting there anymore!

      Delete
    7. Ken, you forgot to paste the link to that all revealing video.

      Delete
    8. You were kicked out in 2006 KB. Still banging the same drum and same design in 2021.

      Delete
  12. Correction: finding a solution for BW would be far easier...

    ReplyDelete
  13. SK, As a soul transitions how can we find it back on our plane of consciousness? There is more than one way to skin a cat, perhaps a time seeking him (Bessler) in our own meditation time, if even for only a few moments. If you can't bring the ..... to the mountain

    ReplyDelete
  14. Most of Bessler's nature should be visible in the new Avatar... The greed for money is another sign... Bessler was religious and so will be in his rebirth... Bessler was secretive and paranoid... All these characteristics should reflect... He was a medicine man aand a clock-maker... This inclination can also throw light... Bessler fell to his death from a height... Fear of heights should manifest in the rebirth... Poverty and hunger during his end period...and this would show up as craze for food and the person reborn as Bessler should know the value of food...and respect it and must be against food wastage... There are so many other things that can indicate if the new soul pertains to Bessler...

    Please note, Bessler struggled throughout his life... He discovered the secret after a lot of effort which just cannot go to another soul... Karma is true... We reap what we sow... Bessler's life is a karmic one... He was very unlucky despite being very honest... All these can't go in vain, can they?...

    ReplyDelete
  15. La ruota di Bessler é possibile ma tutto parte da una scoperta che lui definisce meravigliosa, é sbagliato dire che anche un ragazzo poteva ideare non si può ideare un fenomeno che ancora non si conosce, ci si arriva solo provando e riprovando con il percorso pratico che ha fatto Bessler non si può arrivarci con le simulazioni al fenomeno del peso in eccesso.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fu il conte Karl a dire che un ragazzo poteva capire come funzionavano le ruote di Bessler dopo aver visto la meccanica segreta delle sue ruote. Karl non ha detto che un ragazzo potrebbe facilmente concepire o inventare il design da solo. Inventare una ruota del genere richiede un decennio di duro lavoro.

      Delete
    2. In English from Italian, “ Following Bessler's wheel it is possible but everything starts from a discovery that he defines as wonderful, it is wrong to say that even a boy could conceive, you cannot conceive a phenomenon that is not yet known, it can only be reached by trying and trying again with the practical path that Bessler did, you can't get there with simulations of the excess weight phenomenon.”

      Delete
    3. And the second one which unfortunately did not translate so well, “ Karl went on to tell him a ragazzo poteva capire how it worked for Bessler's route to see the secret mechanics of his ruote. Karl has not discovered that a ragazzo potrebbe easily conceived or invented the design alone. I will invent a route of the genre Richiede a decade of hard work.”.

      Delete
    4. This could be better translation:

      "It was Count Karl who said that a boy could understand how Bessler's wheels worked after seeing the secret mechanics of his wheels. Karl did not say that a boy could easily conceive or invent design on his own. Inventing such a wheel takes a decade of hard work."

      Delete
    5. What really catches my attention was Karl's statement that Bessler's wheels were "so simple" that he, Karl, was AMAZED that no one prior to Bessler had come up with the idea! We read that over and over again yet we know that other than Bessler no one else has found that so simple design yet (yes, I know KB claims he did, but that's not proven yet and may never be). Seems like that would be impossible. It's like saying after being drenched by rain for centuries no one thought of the idea of making an umbrella.

      Could it be that Karl was lying? Unlikely, since he was so honest and honorable. A bad translation? Again, unlikely with such a grammatically simple statement. Even Bessler said it was so simple that he was afraid people would complain it was not worth the price he sold the invention for.

      But for the last three centuries maybe tens of thousands of "so simple" designs have been tried with zero success. It's easy for me to see how the scientists dismiss Bessler's wheels as hoaxes because, they would claim, if they weren't then surely someone, somewhere would have by sheer dumb luck stumbled upon that so simple design. Yet...NOTHING!

      The pursuit of Bessler's wheels probably has the highest frustration involved in it of any pursuit. If Einstein had had even 1/10th the trouble with formulating his special theory of relativity, he probably would have quit science completely and become an insurance salesman which was his original career plan if he couldn't get a job somewhere teaching!

      Delete
    6. “It's like saying after being drenched by rain for centuries no one thought of the idea of making an umbrella.”

      You have to admit, there is a big difference between PM and umbrella. Imagine moving 1100 pounds 12 ft wheel from floor to floor or room to room, setting it up, just to lift “few bricks”, It was much cheaper to hire few starving peasants to do the same job for much less and in shorter time. In Bessler’s times there was no need for such device, In our day and age, it’s a whole new ball game. PM has one and one only application, turning electricity generator.

      BNR

      Delete
  16. You have to admit though there is a big difference between , demonstrating a device and hiring a bunch of starving peasants to lift a load.

    Where are those numbers coming from btw?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry you did not get the meaning of what I wrote, it is not about demonstration of a device, but practical, every day use of it, (after purchase or investment in such device) in real(at the time) life use of this wheel would make no sense, hiring few starving peasant was much more "economical" than transporting and setting it up (time wise and money wise) this is the main reason Bessler never was able to sell it. Hope that explains it. Cheers, cool down.

      BNR

      Delete
    2. Bessler would have disagreed with BNR on practically everything he said. Bessler always gave potential buyers of his wheels the impression that there was no limit to how powerful they could be if they were just made big enough. He even had an idea for a "super wheel" that would have been up to 40 feet in diameter! Something that size could probably have powered an 18th century factory just as well as a water or wind mill.

      Delete
    3. "Bessler would have disagreed with BNR on practically everything he said."

      Ken, what makes you think you can speak on behalf of Bessler? Did you meet him? Did you talk to him?

      "Bessler always gave potential buyers of his wheels the impression that there was no limit to how powerful they could be if they were just made big enough."

      It is not size of the ship but the motion of the ocean that matters.

      This one you will have to figure out your self.

      Now seriously, from what I know Bessler was not trying to sell the size of
      his wheels but the idea of its workings, whoever would bought it, would be intelligent enough to figure it out how high or how far they can go.
      Sorry can you missed it again. Cheers, cool down

      BNR

      Delete
    4. BNR, I think you are using Ken’s numbers to make your point, but those numbers are extravagantly over the top. If you had read my original biography about Bessler you would know that estimated the weight of his wheel without the weights between 250 and 300 pounds, and with weights, about 500 pounds. Without knowing how many and how heavy the weights were, it’s difficult to get even a rough estimate of the loaded weight of the wheel, but common sense should tell us that 1100 pounds is utterly absurd.

      So BNR is also Ken?

      JC

      Delete
    5. I'm convinced that BNR is actually a sock puppet of SK! He just leaves the ...'s out of his comments to hide that.

      IIRC, KB gives an estimate, with weights installed, of 550 lbs for the Merseburg wheel and 1,100 lbs for the Kassel wheel. So, his estimate for the Merseburg wheel's weight isn't far off from your estimate of 500 lbs if that's your estimate for the Merseburg wheel's weight.

      If 550 lbs. is your estimate for the Kassel wheel's weight, then why use an 8 inch diameter axle on that wheel? An 8 inch diameter axle has almost double the cross sectional area of a 6 inch diameter axle which means almost double the load bearing strength. Using an axle with about double the strength of the axle used for the Merseburg wheel would only seem to be necessary if the Kassel wheel was about double the weight of the Merseburg wheel. Double 550 lbs. gives us 1,100 lbs.

      KB is convinced that to impress Karl, Bessler would have promised to make him a wheel with double the power of the Merseburg wheel and, since it would still have the same 12 foot diameter, that meant using lead weights with twice the weight. If they were 4 lbs. each in the Merseburg wheel that means he would have used ones that were 8 lbs. each in the Kassel wheel. If that is what Bessler actually did, it would have resulted in a wheel that was about twice as heavy as the Merseburg wheel and required an axle with about twice the cross sectional area to support that double weight.

      Delete
    6. John, I admit I did not read your books (sorry)
      I've seen this numbers in one of the past blogs,
      1100 lb or 500 lb, I don't care really, if you say it was 500 lb that's fine with me. But it's not the point , what I was trying to say is that in Bessler’s times nobody could see the potential of such a device, should his demonstrations happen 100 years later that would be entirely different story. BNR stands for Batteries Not Required. Read my past post, they will not tell you who I am, but they sure will tell you who I am not

      Delete
    7. I noticed something interesting in that DT picture of the Kassel wheel where its working different machines. Look at the right end of the axle of the left side drawing of the wheel. There's some sort of band surrounding the end of the axle. It looks like there might also be a similar band around the end of the other side of the axle. I think they were metal collars that were put around the ends of the axle.

      They might have been put there to reinforce the ends of the axle and keep the wood there from splitting when the weight of the wheel and axle was put on the two axle pivots. I think this tends to support the 1100 pound weight for the Kassel wheel because we don't see these small collars around the ends of the Merseburg wheel's axle which was probably a lighter wheel.

      Delete
    8. That band you see on the end of the Kassel wheel axle might be similar to this steel band around the hub of an old wooden wagon wheel. It reinforced the hub so its wood did not split when a heavy load was placed in the wagon that then pressed the axle pivot down against the inside of the hub.

      https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/rusty-wooden-wagon-wheels-strolling-old-town-phoenix-arizona-came-across-abandoned-how-many-miles-did-carry-covered-95743414.jpg

      Delete
  17. "I'm convinced that BNR is actually a sock puppet of SK!"

    Ken, you are wrong again!

    BNR

    ReplyDelete
  18. My weight estimates applied to the Kassel wheel not the Merseburg wheel.

    My estimate of 250-300 pounds without weights, is in my opinion the maximum weight Bessler and his brother could comfortably move the wheel from one support to the other one.

    The suggestion that the Kassel wheel was designed to have double power does not add up. For a start it lifted the same weight as the Merseburg wheel. The Kassel wheel was designed to survive the endurance test, 54 days. To ensure no break-downs due to wear and tear, it turned at half the speed of the Merseburg wheel. Because it turned so slowly Bessler used a fatter axle to pull the rope and chest of stones more quickly for the benefit of the witnesses.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "My weight estimates applied to the Kassel wheel not the Merseburg wheel...My estimate of 250-300 pounds without weights, is in my opinion the maximum weight Bessler and his brother could comfortably move the wheel from one support to the other one."

      You must be confusing the Kassel wheel with the Merseburg wheel. Bessler and his brother never had to lift the Kassel wheel in one piece from one set of supports to another nearby set. They first constructed the complete Kassal wheel in a ground level "garden shed" and then, at the count's later request, took it apart and would have had to move it in pieces to an upper floor of Weissenstein Castle and reassemble it there.

      "For a start it lifted the same weight as the Merseburg wheel."

      We can't really be sure how much weight the Kassal wheel could lift. That would depend on the weight and the distance lifted (IIRC, Ken B. estimated a load of 200 pounds lifted about 50 feet in about a minute and a half). If the Kassal wheel was double the mass of the Merseburg wheel, then the Kassal wheel may have been able to hoist double the load of that earlier wheel or around 200 pounds before it used up the momentum it first built up inside of itself (this would fit in with Ken's estimate).

      "To ensure no break-downs due to wear and tear, it turned at half the speed of the Merseburg wheel."

      The slower maximum speed might have been due to it having weights on its levers that were twice as heavy as the ones in the Merseburg wheel. The CF affecting those weights would have been greater and disabled their shifting motions at a lower speed and that then reduced the Kassal wheel's maximum speed.

      Bessler Curious


      Delete
    2. You’re right BC, I put the names the wrong way around, my estimates of the weights referred to the Meseburg wheel not the Kassel wheel. Nevertheless I still believe the Kassel wheel was designed to turn slowly in order to fulfil the endurance test.

      And where you got the idea that “ They first constructed the complete Kassal wheel in a ground level "garden shed" and then, at the count's later request, took it apart and would have had to move it in pieces to an upper floor of Weissenstein Castle and reassemble it there.”, I cannot think, unless it must have come from Frank Edward’s account which we all know had a number of undocumented features and much poetic licence.

      By the way I really wish would not continue to pretend that you are not Ken B when everyone knows you are!

      JC

      Delete
    3. Frank Edwards wrote:
      "It was under the patronage of Count Karl of Hesse-Cassel that Orffyreus built his last and largest wheel. He constructed the thing in a gardener's shed on the ground of Weissenstein castle where it could be kept under lock and key and guarded by one of the Count's men for fear that someone would see how it was built."

      I've heard that room described as the "tool room" where gardening tools may also have been stored. Edwards' use of the word "shed" implies a free standing structure outside of and separate from the castle building. However, maybe it was a storage room that could be accessed from the garden and was inside of the castle on the ground floor? Then again, maybe Edwards had a badly translated description of the room...or we do?! And I guess there's always the possibility that he actually had some info about it that we don't have!

      Most likely this storage room was at ground level and several floors below where the Kassal wheel finally wound up. It would, as BC says, have to have been taken apart, moved up stairs, and then reassembled. Maybe that was a last minute change of plans that Karl made, even to Bessler's surprise, to assure himself and others that Bessler would not have had time to make any major changes to the architecture of the wheel's final room so that the duration test of it could be faked?

      Unfortunately, there will probably always be many details of the Bessler story that we won't know for sure.

      Delete
    4. Here's a sketch I found done of Weissenstein Castle in 1640.

      https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQqUjNp1yAhIgTNwF-YZ7J7C6aFIJINFBK_Q&usqp=CAU

      The count's cascade leading up to the "Hercules Octagon" is not shown but would been toward the top and far out of the drawing (it wasn't completed that early anyway). The garden is not directly behind the main castle buildings, but off to the side. Look in the upper left corner of the stone wall surrounding the castle. There is a tower there, but also a small building just below it. That little building is probably the "gardener's shed" that Frank Edwards was referring to. It would be the perfect place to put gardening tools and also construct Bessler's Kassal wheel away from the prying eyes of the nobility hanging out at the castle. Of course, being paranoid about security, Bessler would have had guards around that building day and night to keep the curious away.

      Bessler Curious (and I'm NOT Ken B!)

      Delete
    5. Here's a black and white image of a painting done in 1786 by Johann Heinrich Müntz which shows that "little house" on the side of the castle's grounds. It's not that small and looks like a two story building. Maybe it was a house for the gardener and his family? If Bessler used it for his wheel's initial construction, then they would have had to remove that family from the building for security. Maybe they were moved into rooms in the castle? If so, maybe they were put in the same wing with Bessler's family? Or with other servants in the castle?

      http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/3/5/4/3/4/5/i/1/0/0/p-large/Johann_Heinrich_MA_ntz_-_WilhelmshA_he_Kassel_1786.jpg

      On the back of the painting someone wrote in French "Many workers can be seen here, destructing the southern wing of the castle and digging out a deep basin to its feet, in order to create a large pond."

      Delete
    6. That little house is most curious. We see it in the drawing from 1640 and in the painting from 1786 which is 146 years later. It just sits there unchanging like the Sphinx!

      Because of its location, it most likely was used by the court gardener. That was a rather prestigious title and I'd bet that the first floor would have had a fourteen foot tall ceiling just like the rooms in the castle. Bessler needed that particular floor to ceiling height to be able to provide a foot of clearance for the bottom and top of his Kassal wheel's drum.

      Maybe the German description Edwards found of that building that he translated as "gardener's shed" should have been more properly translated as "gardener's small house"? There could have been a separate room on the first floor that was devoted to storage of tools and gardening equipment and that room was the one called the "tool room". Maybe it was that particular room where the Kassal wheel was first constructed. That would have left the rest of the first floor free for visitors to meet before being allowed into the tool room to see Bessler give a demonstration of his 12 foot wheel.

      I can just imagine him doing it several times a week at a certain time every afternoon. After lunch the nobles would have been getting some sun and wandering around the garden when someone would say "Quick, Herr Bessler is about to give a demonstration of his perpetual motion wheel!" Those in the garden would then flock over to the gardener's house to view the demonstration.

      If anyone ever invents a time machine, I know where I'd like to take my first trip in it...right to that garden maybe around 2 pm in the afternoon!

      Delete
    7. Here's another painting of the count's castle and that big octagon building with the Hercules statue on top of it in the distance. It was painted by Johann Georg Pforr in 1778.

      https://www.meisterdrucke.com/kunstwerke/500px/Johann_Georg_Pforr_-_Weissenstein_Castle_near_Kassel_%28Wilhelmshoehe%29_1778_-_%28MeisterDrucke-590180%29.jpg

      But look how tall that "little" building on the side of the garden is and how long its windows are! I'm not convinced at all that this is a gardener's house. It looks more like some sort of chapel to me. Maybe that's where Karl and the rest of his court and guests attended their Sunday services? If so, then the "tool room" certainly wouldn't be located in that building, but I do agree that it would have been at ground level somewhere near the garden.

      jason

      Delete
    8. I've always wanted to see the floor plan of Wiessenstein Castle, but I can't find it anywhere. It would be nice to know or at least guess the actual room in the castle that appears in the two Kassel wheel drawings in DT.

      Delete
  19. 1,100 lbs bearing down on the axle plus 200 lbs pulling on the axle. okay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That extra 200 pound load was connected by a rope to one side of the Kassal wheel's axle. If you evenly distribute a 1,100 lb weight for the Kassal wheel, before any hoisted external load's weight was attached to its axle, that would put 550 pounds on each of its brass bearing plates in its vertical support beams. With the 200 pounds added to one side of the axle during a hoist, the bearing plate on that side would have had a little less than 750 pounds pressing down on it. That's why many believe that the Kassal wheel's axle pivots had to be over an inch in diameter and which seems more appropriate for an 8 inch diameter axle.

      Delete
  20. There is absolutely no evidence of 1,100 lb wheel and 200 lb lift ability. Pure speculation. A water screw test was mentioned that lifted water at a steady 20 rpm. It did not slow down which is another unfounded speculation when the Merseburg and Kassel wheels did Work.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is not a single document accounting for Frank Edward’s garden shed, with or without a bad translation. Edwards made up other so-called facts which are demonstrably invented by him in the form of clear documentary evidence. He too was infamous for his stories of UFOs, aliens and ghost, so I think Ken has modelled himself on Edwards, which should give us a hint about the reliability of his “facts”..

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John may feel the need to put down Frank Edwards and describe him as "infamous" which means "well known for some bad quality or deed", but Edwards is considered to be one of the pioneers of radio. Here's a link to a short bio on him on wikipedia:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Edwards_(writer_and_broadcaster)

      When you look up John Collins on wikipedia, you find many bio's for people named "John Collins", but none of them is "our" John Collins. I guess wikipedia doesn't consider him to be a pioneer of anything. No wonder he's so envious of Frank Edwards!

      Delete
    2. A pioneer of radio I don’t dispute, but the facts speak for themselves. Edwards used poetic license to spice up his account of Bessler’s wheel. Quote from your own link, “ He was dismissed from the radio program in 1954, for reasons that remain uncertain. His interest in UFOs was believed to be a factor”.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Jealous? I think that claim is more applicable to you Ken. You’re the flying saucer devotee.

      JC

      Delete
    4. Frank Edwards gave the masses what they were interested in at the time which in the late '40's and early '50's was the various "waves" of UFO's people were sighting and even occasionally photographing and filming. Many had never heard of Bessler or his wheels until Edwards devoted a chapter to them in his book. Some of those readers went further to read about him in Gould's book and of those some became lifelong pm chasers.

      I'm sure Edwards "dramatized" some of the accounts in his books, but he probably did that because he didn't have any evidence that things could not have happened as he described them and it made his accounts more interesting to read. No one wants to just read "dry" biographies of people and events like they were forced to do in their history classes. They want to read material that fires up their imaginations and Edwards was able to supply that not just for Bessler's wheels, but for other subjects as well.

      I went to the wikipedia article on Frank Edwards and in the bibliography section they list all of his published books. The reference section has eight references for him. Hopefully, someday we'll see something similar for our John Collins.

      Delete
    5. I must just add a response to the suggestion that Bessler constructed his Kassel wheel in the Gardner’s shed! Another of Frank Edward’s flights of fancy, for which no document exists, I promise you, so no translation would be possible, whether good or bad. Also part of the agreement between Bessler and the Landgrave required a special room be set aside next to his living quarters/bedroom, where he could begin construction of his last and biggest wheel. It needed the uprights which supported the wheel to be bolted top and bottom, to the floor and ceiling, it had to be securely locked during the endurance test, and it had to be high enough to demonstrate its lifting ability with access ton more than one window. The room had to be large enough to accommodate witnesses.

      Forget the gardening shed, it never existed or if there was one it was not used.

      JC

      Delete
    6. John also wants you to believe that Bessler never attached pendulums to his wheels just because he, John, can't find any mention of them. Lol! Yes, forget what you are seeing with your own two eyes in those drawings that Bessler made and even his own mention of them! One of John's buddies swears that the Kassal wheel never powered a water pump. Again, forget what your eyes see and witnesses reported.

      If the room that had the Kassal wheel in it was right next to Bessler's bedroom, then why the need for guards around the clock to protect it? I mean Bessler would have been there all night. Why would Karl have ordered the wheel moved to a different room? These things only make sense if the wheel started out at a different and far less secure location and a ground level "tool room" sounds more likely.

      IIRC, Bessler's fired maid swore that Bessler's bedroom was near the room with the wheel and that was how she and his wife and teenage daughter were able to make the wheel run. She was a liar committing perjury so her claim is worthless. Can you imagine the Bessler's trying to sleep during the two months of the duration test with that constant thumping sound coming all night through their bedroom wall next to the room with the wheel?! Maybe they both plugged their ears with softened candle wax?!

      The reality is that we don't know for sure exactly where the Kassal wheel was located in the castle, but it seems more likely that it was in two different locations and the final one was on an upper floor near the roof. For all we know, Edwards' "gardener's shed" location may have been accurate. It would have been nice, however, if he had provided his source for that location.

      Delete
    7. I will explain everything you need to know about the pendulums in due course, Ken.

      We know in which room the wheel was erected because the wheel room was shown to William Kenrick in in 1745 and he describes seeing the retaining bolts which held the uprights, were still attached to the ceiling.

      Go away now, I’ve had enough of your wild undocumented speculation and it just muddies the water for others who prefer to deal with facts.

      JC

      Delete
    8. I'm trying to figure out how Bessler managed to get the two vertical support beams up to the top floor of the castle for his wheel. They probably weighed about 300 pounds each and were about 14 feet long each! How did they get them up stairs, around corners, and through small doors? Maybe that pulley we see outside of the window was originally used to lift them up from the courtyard and then somehow they were able to pull them in through the window? Kind of like how they used to move pianos to the upper floors of buildings. Just installing those two supports alone would have required a huge effort.

      Delete
    9. I think you over estimated the weight of a fourteen foot oak beam, measuring six inches by six inches. I find that a cubic foot of freshly sawn oak weights about 45 pounds. Three and a half cubic feet of oak would weigh about 157 pounds, not 300. If it’s seasoned wood and dried out a bit it could be much less.

      JC

      Delete
    10. Anon 18:29 probably used a beam a foot wide by half a foot thick by 14 feet long which gives the volume of the wood per beam as 7 cubic feet and would double your estimate to 314 pounds. For an 1100 pound wheel your beams would probably be too small.

      I've been thinking about how Bessler would have moved the Kassel wheel from a ground floor up to a top floor at the castle. I think anon 18:29's suggestion of using the pulley outside the window would work. They would have had to make sure that the pulley and its support could hold at least 400 pounds. Bessler and his brother would then have removed all of the lead weights and any steel springs from the drum and then carefully cut the drum into two half pieces. Each half piece would have been removed from the axle. The axle would then have been taken off of the supports and the 14 foot long supports removed from between the floor and ceiling of wherever the wheel was located on the castle's ground level.

      They would have employed laborers to first hoist the two beams up to the room near the roof, pull them in through the window, and put them in place between floor and ceiling. Next, the axle would have been hoisted up and mounted between the beams. Then each half of the drum went up. Those halves were 12 feet long by 6 feet in radius so the window would have to have been at least 6 feet high for them to go through them. They had tall windows in those old castles so that probably could have been done. Finally, Bessler and his brother would have sent up boxes with the weights and springs inside of them. Once the laborers were gone, the two would have installed the weights and springs, reconnected any previously removed cords when the drum was cut in two, and the wheel would have been ready to go.

      If they were working at this daily, the entire move and reassembling of the Kassal wheel on the castle's top floor could probably have been done in only one week! I think Bessler was the type who liked to get results as quick as possible and such a quick move would have impressed the count who was paying for everything.

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
    11. @BC
      You forgot to mention that once the two halves of the drum were inside of the top room, Bessler and his brother would have had to reattach them to the axle by themselves since they wouldn't want strangers involved doing that who might see something they weren't supposed to see. They probably also would have covered over the cut open middle of each half drum piece with cloth so the workmen wouldn't be able to look inside of them while they were being hoisted up to the room.

      If the half drum pieces didn't have a lot of metal parts in them yet they could have done that by using overhead pulleys to lift each one up against the bottom of the mounted axle to reattach it. Maybe they were held to the axle with some sort of L shaped metal brackets that were screwed down against the wood of the axle? But then they would have to join together any cuts they made to the wooden frame pieces of the drum. Maybe they just glued the cut ends together or used little metal plates held to the wood with screws?

      Delete
    12. I carefully measured the height of that window and it was just a little larger than the radius of the Kassal wheel. If as BC suggested the drum was cut into two equal pieces, then each one could have been passed through that window.

      Delete
    13. I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond to your speculations Ken, but I guess you’re entitled to speculate in the absence of evidence and there isn’t any.

      JC

      Delete
  22. PLEASE TAKE NOTE.

    Given my imminent move from my current house to another one, via a few weeks staying with my daughter, I shall have to stop blogging for a few weeks and have already had to pack up my tools and make my workshop available for moving stuff.

    I’ll miss the cut and thrust of debate here and the company of all of you guys - and I do mean all - and look forward to getting back in touch again once we are settled into our new home. At my age is tough to move house but hopefully it’ll be worth it.

    I’ll leave up a page about the legend and details of the books available and I’ll leave the comments open for a while to see how it goes. Maybe someone will find the solution while I’m busy moving house?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. De déménagements en déménagements c'est la le mouvement perpétuel.
      Bon établissement dans votre nouvelle demeure.
      J.B.

      Delete
    2. JB wrote, “ From removals to removals it is the perpetual movement.
      Good establishment in your new home.”

      Thank you JB, it certainly seems perpetual at the moment.

      JC

      Delete
    3. "Maybe someone will find the solution while I’m busy moving house?"

      Be careful what you wish for, it just might happen!

      BNR

      Delete
    4. All the best with your move John and I hope you have a pleasant few weeks with your daughter. May you be happy in your new home once you get there.

      Zhy

      Delete
    5. I’ll be happy if someone else finds the solution, BNR. It might even be you.

      Thanks Zhy, I’ll be happy once this first part of moving is complete, then we can concentrate on finding our next/last home.

      JC

      Delete
    6. Well, I alredy did.

      BNR

      Delete
    7. Just so long as he's not Ken B! Lol!

      Delete
    8. Don't worry I got no books or any other "goods" for sale, your wallet is safe.

      BNR

      Delete
  23. Le otto pacche sentite dai testimoni sono le zampe dei cani descritte in AP che battono sul cerchio, sono pesi che Bessler chiama appendici perennemente sbilanciate una disposizione molto simile a MT 11, infatti se guardiamo i due 1 di MT 11 anno le zampe di qua e di là, sono una ulteriore spinta Bessler ha detto che la ruota lavora su più piani, il motore principale è spinto dai cavalli che vagano senza meta e fanno parte del peso in eccesso.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PG wrote, “ The eight pats heard by the witnesses are the paws of the dogs described in AP that strike the circle, they are weights that Bessler calls perennially unbalanced appendages, a disposition very similar to MT 11, in fact if we look at the two 1s of MT 11 year the paws on both sides beyond, I'm a further boost Bessler said the wheel works in multiple planes, the main engine is propelled by the horsepower that wanders aimlessly and is part of the excess weight.”

      I’ll have to think about that PG,

      JC

      Delete
    2. Very good PG you seem to have great insight into the connection of the poem and the device you must also have an understanding of what causes them to wander aimlessly otherwise you could have not made the connection. If you have taken what is written in Mt 11 to it logical Direction that arises in your mind at the end of the statement it will lead you to what you probably already found indicated by your mention of multiple planes! Good fishing yes I already know I pointed it out sometime ago you really must study the planes carefully. The book in his portrait on the one hand the book tries to show the impossibility and on the other hand it points out the books knowledge of what makes it possible. It's a love-hate thing good luck with the Odyssey!

      Delete
    3. Scusa Stephen Glorioso non capisco cosa vuoi dire con studiare attentamente gli aerei, per il resto apprezzo le tue deduzioni Saluti.

      Delete
    4. In English PG wrote:

      "Sorry Stephen Glorioso I don't understand what you mean by studying planes carefully, otherwise I appreciate your deductions. Greetings."

      Delete
  24. Ken B.

    Why don't you create your own blog? This really isn't the place to post ideas about your design.

    If you create your own blog, everyone interested can visit and post comments specific to your build, and you can freely post your views. If you want to advance and advertise your design (or what you think is Bessler's design) this seems the best way to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Create his own blog to "advance and advertise" his design? Lol! Why would he bother doing that when he already has google doing it for him 24/7? Think I'm kidding? Just google "bessler's wheel" and see what comes up at the top of the first search page.

      Delete
    2. It looks like he's trying to achieve Bessler's dream of informing the entire world about his wheels but by using the internet instead of pamphlets. Bessler would have done the same if he had the internet back then. However, he certainly wouldn't be giving the secret away so cheaply.

      Delete
  25. In case no one's seen this yet, a Bessler pm wheel chaser from Germany named Alois Zimmermann mentioned over at BW forum that he thinks he's found a way Bessler could have shifted the weights around inside of his wheel's drum to keep them out of balance. He thinks those pegs on the axle that lifted the wood stampers were somehow involved. He gave a link to the webpage on his site were he describes how it was done:

    http://www.heizungsvergleich.de/bessler/falltime.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad to see someone's working in that direction of course not the correct arrangement but I like the way his mind works. Suspicion that the device wasn't completely inside the wheel is correct at least for one of the designs

      Delete
    2. His drawing is nice and shows a new approach. It looks like he thinks the weight of a wood stamper on an axle peg could be used to shift the weights around inside of a wheel's drum to cause it to become overbalanced. The problem with this is that for it to work those pegs in the axle would have to be in slots so they could twist about when they were lifting a stamper and the axle would mostly be hollow which would greatly weaken it. I'm sure they examined those axle pegs carefully during official tests and they were solidly fixed into the axle. And how would he explain a wheel being able to run when the stamping machine wasn't attached to the axle?

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
  26. In response to yet more comments posted by Ken B under various pseudonyms, I have decided I shall have to ask people to sign in to post comments. I have resisted this action for almost ten years and it is with regret that I am forced to take this action. I’ve tolerated the occasional negative comments aimed at me by others, I’ve even deleted a few, but Ken’s persistent refusal to either sign in or stop promoting his book has persuaded me that signing is the only solution.

    I won’t require a sign in until the next blog is posted.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the Behrendt curse, there is no escaping it-----------------Sam

      Delete
  27. would this be a google account , or a members sign in ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure yet. It looks as though it has to be one or the other but not both. I’ll look into it but if you have any preference let me know.

      JC

      Delete
    2. As an experiment I’ve required a google sign in. If anyone finds that too troublesome let me know and I’ll try using member sign in. Thanks.

      JC

      Delete
    3. I removed the google sign in requirement, because either no one could get in or it’s a quiet day? 😃

      JC

      Delete
  28. The animation from Zimmermann is pretty cool. The lift at the bottom and the lift at the top will require a lot of force. But I liked the action

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi all, please feel free to comment again. The alternative sign in options were too unpopular so it’s back to anonymous comments.

    JC

    ReplyDelete

Reviewing the Power of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine

Many people have calculated the potential power of Bessler’s wheel and concluded that it wouldn’t amount to much, however I’m not convinced ...