Some Thoughts Worth Considering in Designing a Gravity Wheel

I used the term ‘Gravity Wheel’ in the title of this blog in place of ‘Bessler’s Wheel’ to show that gravity wheels might have different configurations to Bessler’s Wheels, although from what I know I don’t think the basics will differ very much.

Fletcher made a comment in my last blog which touched upon a point which most of us will be aware of but which maybe some people missed the potential beneficial consequences of including its actions in our designs. I know its action is used in Bessler’s wheel.

fletch wrote, “ By my reasoning, therefore, for a Bessler wheel to gain in Angular Momentum and be everlasting in motion etc, then some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy.”

A couple of years ago I realised the importance of something connected with gravity wheels which I had been aware of all my life but never considered it’s potential as a source of free energy, additional to that which we already know about, i.e, gravity enabled falling weights.

We design weights to be able to move around with the intention of causing the wheel to overbalance. We can calculate the work done by gravity in making the weights fall, but of course the path of the falling weight is not needed because we only need the perpendicular height of the fall. But if the weight is required to do work as it falls, and still overbalance the wheel, the extra time which the weight takes to fall because it’s doing work, does not affect the calculation, because in the simplest terms, time is not a necessary ingredient. 

Therefore if we simply configure the mechanism to react to the position change of the wheel and use gravity to make a weight move into position which overbalances the wheel, we miss the opportunity to use the weight’s action or motion under the force of gravity, to do some work during its fall. 

If the weight is in free-fall, it has no potential energy to unleash as kinetic energy, until it lands, but if it does work as it falls then it is using kinetic energy as it does so and it can still cause the desired overbalance by its eventual completion of its fall. The argument is similar that used in describing the friction generated in a brick sliding down a slope but in this case the work/friction could be used to help lift a fallen weight. This action may explain von Erlach’s description of each weight “landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned”. There was little or no padding because the weights were slowed down by doing work, and made reduced noise as they landed. 

This idea I believe might correspond to fletch’s comment that “….some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy.”

JC

My Way Works for Me, I Hope! Maybe It Will Work for You?

 I’ve mentioned this before, but anyway here I go again!  

There is so much talk about doing the maths, vector dynamics, velocity and acceleration analysis, gravitation and orbital mechanics, geometry etc (apologies to Tim for borrowing his words, but it supported my point perfectly).  Surely you can work out if it might have potential by sketching it out on paper, draw in the various weight positions, and if it still looks possible do what I suggest next. There is too much speculation about the maths in my opinion.  I can visualise a mechanism and watch it turn, and I’m sure lots of people in this field can do so too.

Surely anyone can test a theoretical design with cheap materials.  Cardboard, card, lolly sticks, straws, cotton thread, brass split-pins, fishing weights, washers, nuts and bolts.  Threaded rods or bolts. Old second hand Meccano sets even if they are missing most their original content are still a good source of pulleys etc.  These are the things I use and have done so for many years, much of it recycled from one design to another.  I used to make my prototypes out of good quality materials, but subsequently, I always kept in mind that this first model was for my eyes only, just to prove the design to myself.  A more attractive construction would follow my first successful build.

There are some people who are so focussed on reducing friction to a minimum that I think they’ve for gotten that Bessler’s wheel did work, lifting 70 pound chests, turning an Archimedes pump, not to mention running for several weeks.  Why worry about friction at all, if it works, refining everything can be done afterwards when it works.

There are others who spend inordinate amounts of time and money, producing beautiful mechanisms that are a joy to behold, yet still remain as motionless as a statue.  

Many people seek to solve Bessler’s wheel by trying to jump straight to the bi-directional wheel, which Bessler admitted gave him problems initially.  I’ve always concentrated on trying to duplicate the one way wheel first.  It is clearly the simpler of the two options.

Now of course I know that time after time I’ve been told that simulations are the way to go and I’m sure that’s true, but firstly I’m too old to learn how to use this kind of software, but more importantly I enjoy building models.  I find that I can learn more from building than looking at designs, whether on paper or in a video, and a few months ago I learned something I believe to be crucial to Bessler’s design simply because I was holding a piece of mechanism and just handling it, watching it operating my hands.

But I know sims are popular and even though I doubt I can understand it all, and actually I’m so busy that I have little time to learn about them, if I get a working model I have contacts who I’m sure would be happy make a sim of my wheel in action. I’m not convinced of their necessity given the success of a physical build, but I will bow to the consensus opinion, if I’m successful.

JC

Provable Scientific Facts Mean More than Expert Opinions

No matter how famous and celebrated some scientists may be, they are all prone to promoting scientific fallacies. One example everyone is familiar with is Lord Kelvin’s statement in 1895,  that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later by the Wright brothers’ flight.  But Kelvin wasn’t alone, the number of scientists and engineers who shared his conviction is too large to count.

Almost every top scientist you can mention made firm comments at some point in their otherwise illustrious careers, about some areas of scientific research which later proved to be wrong. I include Charles Darwin, Fred Hoyle, Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan to mention just a few.

“In 1847, a 26-year-old German medical doctor, Hermann Helmholtz, gave a presentation to the Physical Society of Berlin that would change the course of history. He presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible.

Axiom - A statement or proposition that is accepted as true without proof.

No one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy.

But a profound reversal of reasoning has occurred in the last century. Helmholtz originally said "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;" while in any physics text book today one will find the statement that "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible."

Skeptics are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible.”

So given the doubts about Helmholtz’s axiom and Bessler’s validated claim to have invented such a machine, how can we ignore the potential benefit of a machine which costs nothing in energy to run?

There are many fields occupied by so-called pseudo-scientists and that is one of the more respectable names I’ve been called.  But how much more pseudo-scientific can you get than Helmholtz’s ridiculous axion, especially when Johann Bessler had proved him wrong over 130 years earlier?  It doesn’t matter that he made some significant discoveries in unconnected fields of science, so did the celebrated people I mentioned above, but just because someone excels in a particular field doesn’t necessarily mean that everything they say is correct.

There are surprisingly few proven facts in science. Instead, scientists often talk about how much evidence there is for their theories. The more evidence, the stronger the theory and the more accepted it becomes. 

Scientists are usually very careful to accumulate lots of evidence and test their theories thoroughly. But the history of science has some key, if rare, examples of evidence misleading enough to bring a whole scientific community to believe something later considered to be radically false.

Johann Bessler’s wheel has been ignored or dismissed by the vast, heavyweight scholarship of countless teachers and scientists who have defiantly promoted this paradigm, invented by Helmholtz as if it came directly from God.  It didn’t, it’s misleading and it’s wrong!

Most of the above quotation comes courtesy of the Besslerwheel forum with huge thanks to its moderator.

JC

Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Needs a Paradigm Shift

Some people who visit this blog may be tempted to dismiss our whole raison d'être because they don’t know why we might even wish to be promoting such an apparently long-discarded theory of science.  The fact is that this old and hoary theory has been so resoundingly denounced, trampled on and blown out of the water, that anyone who raises the merest possibility that some form of practical perpetual motion might be possible is regarded with scorn, pity or utter contempt,  I know, I’ve been there!

But amazingly there is strong but circumstantial evidence that actually a continuously rotating device, powered only by the falling of a succession of weights mounted in a particular configuration upon a wheel, for instance, is possible.  But even more amazingly it was invented and exhibited to the public for more than ten years, over three hundred years ago!

Some of you who read this will be sceptical and I don’t blame you.  You have been taught that this device is impossible and this has become an embedded tradition which has continued for more than the 300 years since before Johann Bessler first revealed his invention. Even then he had to fight the scientific institutions to try to prove his machine was genuine and nothing has changed.

I have spent my whole life researching this man’s claims, and I’ve self-published five books, one a biography about him and the other four are translations of his own publications.  

The fascinating thing is that Johann Bessler suspected that he might never be able to sell his machine and he wrote that he would accept acknowledgement for inventing a real machine, posthumously, if he failed to be recognised in his lifetime.  To this end he left an incredible collection of coded information with which he intended to reveal his secret mechanism.  I have made great advances in finding and deciphering much of this hidden information, in fact I know enough to know exactly how his machine worked.  My intention is to reveal everything I’ve discovered in the hope that someone will use it to build the first replica of Bessler’s wheel in over 300 years.  I would prefer to build it first, partly for my own satisfaction, but also because I fear that simply publishing the solution, explaining the clues and what they mean, may result in it being simply ignored and disregarded like many other publications which call into question assumptions deeply lodged within the subconscious.  Ones mind is constantly filtering and bringing to your attention information and stimuli that affirms your preexisting beliefs (known in psychology as confirmation bias) as well as presenting you with repeated thoughts and impulses that mimic and mirror that which you've done in the past.

To change this paradigm will take more than a book of explanation.There has to be a working demonstration model to accompany the publication. 

One more thing - when Karl the Landgrave of Hesse was shown the interior of Bessler’s wheel, he expressed surprise at how simple it was and marvelled that no one had discovered the secret before.  When I finally learned the secret, I too was shocked that neither I nor anyone else had found it.  It really is so simple that you can understand it as soon as you see it. Nevertheless, I’m going to prove it first before I release the details.

JC