Monday, 28 March 2022

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

53 comments:

  1. The problem with the hands on only approach is that you can spend years working on a design that you have convinced yourself must work only to see it all crash and burn with its first serious test. With the sim first before building approach you can know in a few hours if your latest can't fail design has any hope of being a runner.

    I spent decades using the first approach until I finally woke up one day and realized how much effort, money, time, and worst of all emotions I was wasting with it. Things I'll never get back again and all I have to show after all of it is more candles on my birthday cake! I urge anyone new to the pm chase game to get yourself a working model 2d program however you can and learn to use it which can be done with a few hours of practice.

    The sims you make with it will show you just how unreliable your brain really is when it comes to finding Bessler's or any working pm wheel design. You say you got clues so you must have found Bessler's wheel? Lol! I was delusional enough to believe that more times in the past than I care to think about. All your clues mean nothing if you can't turn them into at least an accurate working sim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AA 17:50 You're wrong----------------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he's so wrong then why does what he's saying perfectly describe John's efforts over the years? They were all just a big waste of effort that led nowhere and will lead nowhere just like mine have been doing all along. I'm not yet simming yet but plan to soon if I can figure out how to get a free or really cheap copy of WM2D on a CD along with its serial number so I can save my models on it. Right now their official site makes you jump through hoops to get a low cost downloaded copy.

      Delete
  3. Very well said Anon 17:50. It only takes a few hours of practice & it's even quicker with tutorials to start designing & building reliable mechanisms & wheels.

    Nobody should be afraid of learning to simulate. It doesn't take anything away from your building skill set. Any program goes hand in hand with a good knowledge of Newton's Physics for best results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’d just like to point out that despite too many attempts to count, my builds have not resulted in a working model, but neither have the assumed countless attempts at success through simming by all those who favour simming.

      JC

      Delete
  4. you'd need more than wm2d to model perpetual motion. the software would have to be modeling as-yet undiscovered mathematics. wm2d is all known math. all the math we know doesn't hold the answer to pm.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AA 20:10 If you think it's best, than you should do it that way. However, hears what bothers me. Behrendt, after 2,000 simulations could only come up with an unworkable device. For what ever the reason, simulations are worthless---------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Ken B claims he did finally find one that worked after 2000 sims and it's shown in that youtube video of his. Faik, he has found it. Right now it looks better than anything else I've seen. But I'd like to see if others can make some working sims of it.

      Delete
  6. youtube , schmoutube. build it and watch it sit there holding down your papers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bessler didn't have a simulation program and still managed to build a runner. So can we. However he did draw hundreds of designs which he could have designed and drawn in a sim program in 1/10th the time. And then as a bonus run the sim and very quickly make changes to it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I can build a wheel without using any electric power tools. I choose not to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you think wm2d can model Bessler’s wheel, then his wheel wasn’t perpetual motion. wm2d can’t model anything that doesn’t work with the math formulas for simple machines. there are no settings or parameters in the software for free energy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Earth to Wayne - a sim is a design tool. It does not replace your brain or hands.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jeff said - "If you think wm2d can model Bessler’s wheel, then his wheel wasn’t perpetual motion. wm2d can’t model anything that doesn’t work with the math formulas for simple machines. there are no settings or parameters in the software for free energy."

    I knew KB's wheel had to be faked

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they didn't work. this guy tried.

      http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=182162&sid=44971f31119a7516c9c7998b3001848f#p182162

      Delete
    2. Jeff wrote "wm2d can’t model anything that doesn’t work with the math formulas for simple machines. there are no settings or parameters in the software for free energy."

      Not true! You can make a wheel with wm2d and pin it to background with a pivot so it can rotate. Next make a graph for the wheel showing its rotation energy versus time. Then apply a torque to the wheel. Finally, run the sim and watch the rotation energy of the wheel just keep increasing! All of that energy accumulating in the wheel is free energy!

      Anon 06:32 wrote "I knew KB's wheel had to be faked"

      There's no real proof of that. After cranking out 2,000 sims I have to consider him to be very knowledgeable when it comes to simming. I don't think he'd claim success unless he was actually very convinced he found it. I also can't believe he'd hoax it and then write a 800 page book to make his hoax look real.

      A lot of the skeptics today who accuse Bessler of hoaxing his wheels are usually completely ignorant of his history and the many wheels he built and the books he wrote about them. Once someone decides to learn that history he quickly realizes his wheels couldn't be hoaxed. I feel the same way about Ken B's claim. Too many sims and too much written about it to be a hoax.

      Everyone says they can't wait for the Bessler wheel to be solved. But, what they don't admit is that they will only accept the solution if it's their particular solution! That guarantees that whoever does finally find the actual solution, even if he says he has a model of it running constantly on his kitchen table, can automatically expect everyone else to say it can't be Bessler's wheel because it doesn't agree with their particular clues and any sims or videos showing the wheel running must all be faked. You can go on youtube right now and find hundreds of videos of hoaxed pm devices all claiming to be genuine with instructions on how to build them. Many of those videos have had millions of views!

      A lot of this reaction is because we live in an age of scammers, liars, and untreated mental cases all making bogus claims for one reason or another. Actually, not much has really changed since the time of Bessler!

      Delete
    3. Anon 16.24,
      I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but not all.
      I don't agree with your arguments with regard Ken's wheel being a runner.
      My thoughts are more along the lines, he has fooled himself into thinking he has a runner, and i would very much like to be wrong, but i can't convince myself that i am, or even might be. Something doesn't ring right, you don't go on about it forever trying to convince people to believe you, when it is clear that nobody wants to believe. You prove by constructing categoric proof that you should be believed.
      Because of the reasons you mentioned above, nobody is going to build his wheel for him, and even if they did build it, and it was a non runner, he would claim it was incorrectly built to defend his belief that it is a runner. He is the only one who can build it because he is the only one who believes in it.
      I would very much like him to build it and prove us all wrong, but i can't see it happening in the near future.
      RH46

      Delete
    4. Ken Behrendt said:
      "Not true! You can make a wheel with wm2d and pin it to background with a pivot so it can rotate. Next make a graph for the wheel showing its rotation energy versus time. Then apply a torque to the wheel. Finally, run the sim and watch the rotation energy of the wheel just keep increasing! All of that energy accumulating in the wheel is free energy!"

      no.
      of course you can model an ideal. that is why the math we know, and the sim is programmed with, tells us what is possible.
      an ideal wheel in an ideal environment can't be built anyway. utterly useless if you tried to build it because that "free energy" would be gone in a very short time.

      Delete
    5. RH46 wrote
      "Something doesn't ring right, you don't go on about it forever trying to convince people to believe you, when it is clear that nobody wants to believe. You prove by constructing categoric proof that you should be believed."

      I've looked at all of Ken B's YT Bessler videos many times and read all of their descriptions and comments and he states in several places that his only goal was to uncover any information Bessler hid in his writings that could be used to reproduce his wheels after his death if the invention did not sell. It was not Ken's goal to personally try making a copy of one of Bessler's wheels to convince anyone he had found the solution. He encourages others with more skill then him to do that.

      He's also mentioned that he is no longer an active Bessler researcher and is moving on to other subjects now that he finally found what he was searching for. Someone posted a link a few blogs ago to another big book he published in February that's about science or physics or something, but not about Bessler.

      For those that haven't read his book yet, Ken eventually concluded that the information needed to reproduce Bessler wheel's, both the one and two way types, was mostly hidden in the two Das Triumphirende portraits of Bessler and about the last quarter of his huge eight hundred page "magnum opus" goes into pointing out those clues and analyzing their meanings. Some of the clues are very obvious while most are number values for the sizes of the parts used in Bessler's three feet Gera prototype wheel (which Ken says was not the wheel publicly demonstrated in Gera in June of 1712). There's also geometric clues about the shape of the levers Bessler used in his wheels that Ken found and he is very insistent that the levers were shaped like the letter Y.

      One really has to read his book to realize how very detailed it is. I don't think he wrote it to make a quick buck selling it like some have accused him of doing. It is obviously a "labor of love" type book and the end result of years of serious research. It might even go down in history as the most important book ever written about Bessler's wheels. He must have done something right because it's getting 5 star reviews over on Amazon.

      Delete
    6. When we finally have a runner in the real world, we will be able to get our heads around our mistake (collectively). Our current understanding of fundamental laws will be either modified to accommodate the new truth or chucked out the window and replaced. I'm more inclined to go with the first, but that is irrelevant. Once we understand where we went wrong, we will not need anyone to build Ken's wheel, to know if it is a failure or a runner, because we will know one way or the other.
      "He must have done something right because it's getting 5 star reviews over on Amazon."
      Are you seriously using this argument to try and get me to change my opinion?
      It is just as pathetic as friction makes PM impossible, gravity makes flight impossible and the earth is flat. The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with if it is true or false.

      Delete
    7. I checked and there were only two reviews, one 5 star and one 3 star. The first one said, “good read and on time”. Not really worth anything. The other one was in Japanese and translated as, “ Drawings of the internal structure of the early wheels were somewhat complicated, but no matter what anyone thinks, they do not move with this. I wonder why there is no theoretical analysis or analysis related to that.” Again not worth anything, but taken together just about sums up the book.

      JC

      Delete
    8. I have read Ken Behrendt's book and was very impressed with it. After reading it I found that all of the vague stuff in John's translations of the Bessler books that everyone has debated for years now finally made sense. Not only does he tell you exactly how Bessler's one direction wheels worked but he also tells you exactly how Bessler managed to make his wheels run in two directions and shows the clues for the special latches that made it possible. I didn't give a review on Amazon but if I had it would have been for five stars.

      Delete
    9. Anon 19:36 said about Ken B

      "He's also mentioned that he is no longer an active Bessler researcher and is moving on to other subjects..."

      and then

      "...he is very insistent that the levers were shaped like the letter Y."

      He may be "moving on" now but last June he was still very active. He liked to celebrate June 6th every year (which he calls "Bessler Day" like it's an official holiday!) with a new youtube video about something to do with Bessler. Last June he uploaded a really unusual video. It looks hastily done and lacks the quality of his previous videos, but it gives the details of a NEW clue he found in the first DT portrait. That clue is not in his book and it actually proves Bessler did use Y shaped levers in his wheels! I've looked at it many times and I'm convinced it's a genuine new clue that no one's ever noticed before. Here's a link to it.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxzkf8h-LQ4

      Delete
    10. Wow! You REALLY have to be into this Bessler stuff to find a clue like that! It makes me wonder how many other clues are in his drawings that no one's noticed before.

      Delete
    11. Part 1 of 2:

      After having my numerological analysis methods insulted here last year, I left in a huff and had no intention of ever posting here again. But, after viewing that KB video Anon 01:08 linked to above, I felt like I'd explode if I didn't make a comment about it!

      Some may recall that, like KB, I am also a believer in Bessler having used "Y" shaped levers in his wheels and that belief is based on my own analysis of the numerology Bessler used in some of his MT drawings. I was a believer, but I still needed to see more to become 100% convinced.

      I also mentioned, just before I left here last year, that I had found an interesting clue that used the two DT portraits together, but because I was angry then I decided not to share it. Now that I've cooled down, however, it looks like it's the right time to share it especially after viewing that KB video.

      I've been particularly fascinated for years with Bessler's hand in the second DT portrait in which he holds a pair of armless eyeglasses. Those kind were held in place in front of a reader's eyes by pinching the sides of the bridge of his nose or by actually being held in place with one hand which must have been awkward and tiring. But, why the eyeglasses I wondered. What was the significance of them. They didn't seem to say anything important in the second portrait so why did Bessler make the extra effort to include them? There had to be a reason. Well, I eventually found that reason and I almost fell out of my chair when I did!

      To see what I discovered about those eyeglasses, use a graphics program to place the two DT portraits together side by side so that the right edge of the first portrait touches the left edge of the second portrait and make sure that the two portraits are horizontally aligned. When they are you should be able to draw a perfectly horizontal line through the tips of Bessler's noses in both portraits. Now look carefully at the index finger of the hand holding the eyeglasses in the second portrait. It's pointing to the left and toward something in the first portrait. But what?

      Sayer of Sooths

      (continued in part 2 of 2)

      Delete
    12. Part 2 of 2:

      To find what Bessler's index finger is pointing toward, extend a line from the tip of the thumb holding the eyeglasses through the tip of his index finger and out into the first portrait which you placed next to the left side of the second portrait. If you've done everything correctly, you will discover that the extended line will reach right over to the bridge of Bessler's nose in the first portrait! The message from this is clear. Bessler wants you to place those eyeglasses on his nose in the first portrait. But, again, why?

      Eyeglasses are worn by older people who have trouble reading fine print to help them read and study printed material and images. Eyeglasses can also be a symbol used to tell someone to study something very carefully. Bessler wanting us to put those eyeglasses on his nose in the first portrait was his way of telling us to carefully study something in the first portrait. Those eyeglasses would be located directly in front of his eyes which means he wanted us to study his EYES in that first portrait! At first glance, this doesn't seem to make sense.

      But, in the KB video he shows how he used Bessler's two eyes along with the ends of the curls of the right side of his wig to derive the shape of those odd "Y" shaped levers used in his wheels. This all fits in perfectly with this double DT portrait clue I discovered. Bessler wanted us to use the eyeglasses he holds in the second portrait to study his eyes in the first portrait and, if we did that, we would eventually find the "Y" shape of the levers he used in his wheels and which KB apparently was able to do without even using the eyeglasses clue!

      I'm still in a state of shock over all of this, but I can say that I am now 100% convinced that Bessler did use "Y" shaped levers in his wheels and I applaud KB for finding this most unusual clue. I probably wouldn't have been able to find it myself without his help. I did purchase the paperback of his giant Bessler wheel book last year, but never got around to reading it because I couldn't find the time to do so. Now, I will make the time to do so!

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
    13. Omg!.SoS!
      Very nice to see you back again and with an incredible new clue for us no less. PLEASE don't ever leave this blog again!

      Delete
    14. https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/i/JEEB1717/Besslertwx.gif

      Delete
    15. I've read these last few comments with great interest. The two clues look genuine to me. First SoS shows us a clue using both portraits that Bessler uses to focus our attention on his eyes in the first DT portrait and then Ken B's video, which I'd never seen before, uses the eyes in that first portrait to get a Y shaped lever!

      What impresses me is that these clues just recently surfaced and someone said they aren't in Ken's Bessler book. That makes them sort of like independent verification of the Y shape levers he shows in his book and youtube wheel video and, I think, strengthens the case that he has finally found the secret of Bessler's wheels which would certainly be nice.

      However, while clues, debate, numerology, sims, and symbols are all interesting, they cannot take the place of a working wheel. All they can do is point us toward where we might find one. Still, I guess it's better to have them than not to have them. I followed SoS's instructions and can verify that a line from the hand holding the eyeglasses in the second DT portrait can be extended to land right on Bessler's nose in the first portrait.

      I agree with SoS that this seems to be Bessler's way of focusing attention on his eyes in the first DT portrait. Trying to find the lever shape after that, however, seems like it would be impossible unless you ALREADY knew what the shape was! But, then again, Ken B claims he DID know what it was BEFORE he made that June 2021 video that was linked to above. That is the only way he possibly could have found the shape in the first DT portrait using Bessler's eyes and wig curls.

      There's something about the logic of this method of finding clues which gives me a headache when I think about it! It's kind of a "Catch 22" situation. You have to know a clue BEFORE you can find it hidden in Bessler's drawings. But, how can you know a clue until AFTER you've found it in the drawings?

      Maybe like sci fi time travel paradoxes it's best not to think too much about this!

      jason

      Delete
    16. Hey SoS, nice to see you posting here again. You always give us some info on Bessler we can't find anywhere else because no one else knows it!

      @jason
      You bring up a good point about that dilemma involving the clues Bessler left. How can you find them if you don't already know them? I think the way around that road block that Ken B used was to keep guessing what in the drawings were clues and then seeing if his assumptions moved his sims closer to working or not. He was actually playing a game of "hot and cold" with them that slowly took him to the solution. But he had to play the game by making thousands of sims!

      I knew someone years ago that was like Ken and totally obsessed with being the guy who finally solved the Bessler wheel. He used hands on and sim builds together and kept at it for years. One day he just announced that he was calling it quits and said that was because he had made about five hundred tries without any real success. Ken B pushed far beyond his limit though which is probably the only reason he found his runner. I have no idea where he found the time and energy for something like that. I gave up after only a few dozen tries.

      Delete
    17. Oh yeah I rember you. Your that forutne telling numbers guy that everyone calls SoS. Yeah welcome back.

      l remeber last year you came and told us about some magic or lucky number ratio you found Bessler put in all his drawings and everyone got all excited abut it and sure enough started finding it too. John didn't like them finding clues he never knew about so he dumped dozens of their comments from the blog! He was hoping to move on to the next blog with no one noticing but they did and there was a lot of angeer over it. You got to be careful what you show here SoS because you never know when it will get dumped because John don't like it. I think he only likes his clues! I have found some good stuff myself but I'm afraid to show it here for that reason.

      Delete
    18. Thanks for the warm welcome everyone! It pleases me that some still remember me and my past comments here. As a reward, I'll share with you another little clue related to the hand that holds those eyeglasses in the second DT portrait that I found and that only now makes sense to me.

      I mentioned in my two part comment above how the index finger of Bessler's hand was pointing to something in the first portrait which was the bridge of his nose there. But, his MIDDLE finger is also pointing to something in the first portrait! If you've joined the edges of the first and second portraits together so they are side by side like I previously described, then try extending another straight line from the tip of Bessler's thumb in the second portrait through the tip of his middle finger in that portrait and out onto the first portrait.

      You will discover that line will go all the way over until it reaches a button on his jacket in the first portrait. It's the THIRD button down from the top of the jacket. Significance? That must have been Bessler's way of telling us that the lever that can be formed from his eyes and wig curl ends in the first portrait has the same orientation as the one located at his wheel's 3 o'clock position. If you then look at the beginning of that recent KB video you will see a photo of the wheel design he found for a few seconds. Look at it's 3 o'clock lever's orientation. It's has the SAME orientation as the one that Bessler so cleverly concealed in the first DT portrait! Again, this clue would have made no sense to me unless I had seen that recent KB video showing how he got the "Y" shape lever from the eyes and wig curl ends in the first DT portrait.

      That middle finger pointing to the third jacket button in the first portrait clue had to be done on purpose by Bessler. It tells us exactly which of his wheel's eight levers he had hidden in the first portrait and it was the lever located at 3 o'clock inside of a drum. Bessler probably thought this would help him if he later had to point out the "Y" shaped lever in the first portrait to prove his priority to the lever shape because some other future inventor had come up with the exact same lever shape in his pm wheel.

      In his video KB refers to the lever shape clue he found in the first DT portrait as the "most important" clue Bessler hid in his drawings. If that shape is the only one that makes an overbalanced wheel work, then it certainly would be a most important clue!

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
    19. @SoS
      You and that Ken B are obviously on another level when it comes to Bessler wheel clues. I doubt if Ken B was aware of that third button clue you just showed us when he made his youtube video about the lever shape he found in the 1st portrait's eyes and wig. But, it does look like you've found some more verification of those weird Y shaped levers that he found. Now the big question is are those lever shapes the only ones that make an OB wheel work? If so then Bessler was right when he said about his wheel in AP:

      "None better will ever be found upon this earth, for without the principle that I alone possess, there can be no real perpetual motion."

      Maybe his "principle" was or required those special Y shaped levers to be used?

      Delete
    20. Great info as usual, SoS!

      Your comments in this blog inspired me to take another look at those eyeglasses in the second DT portrait and I noticed something that might be a clue.

      I notice how perfectly round the lenses in the eyeglasses are and I think the two lenses are supposed to represent two separate one direction wheels that Bessler put into his giant two direction wheels. The two lenses are joined together by the frame and might represent the two one direction wheels sharing the same axle inside of a drum. But, he's only holding the eyeglasses by one of their lenses while, like you said, this fingers point over to the first portrait after you place it up against the left side of the second portrait. Holding just one of the circular lenses was probably Bessler's way of saying that we could find information about his one direction wheels over in the first portrait which Ken B certainly did.

      SoS, if you find any new clues about Bessler's wheels then please do share them here. Everything you've shown us in the past was truly amazing and I think spot on accurate.

      Delete
    21. Glad to read that I "inspired" you, anon 04:50.

      Your further suggestion for the symbolism of the eyeglasses Bessler holds in that second DT portrait is very good. I think you're getting the hang of analyzing Bessler drawing symbolism. Basically, you have to think like Bessler did. He was a numerologist and symbologist par excellence who knew how to hide information in his drawings using letters and symbols.

      In his drawings, everything that is either a circle, like those eyeglass lenses, or a sphere, like the globe on the shop table, in the second portrait is potentially a symbol for his wheels. But, you have to hunt around to find out what information he's attached to those symbols. I was very lucky to find how his fingers holding the eyeglasses were pointing to certain items in the first portrait.

      Other than the irises of Bessler's eyes and the buttons on his jacket and shirt, there are no other circles in the first DT portrait. That little detail alone should be enough to draw the serious Bessler drawing analyst's attention to that portrait.

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
    22. Great stuff for us as usual, SoS.

      I checked out those lines you said to draw from the tip of B's thumb through his pointer and middle fingers and they do land on his nose and jacket button in the first portrait like you said. But, I drawed some more lines and made my own discovery thanks to you.

      If you draw a line from his thumb tip down through the tip of his pinky in the first portrait it goes all the way down to the tip of his pinky in the second portrait. Pinky to pinky! Now for my discovery. If you measure the angle between the line to his nose and that line to his pinky tip in the first portrait you find it is exactly 90 degrees!

      I think the chance off that being an accident is like one in a million. It was done on purpose and shows us he wanted us to connect the two portraits side by side like you said to do. I agree the eyeglasses were his way of telling us to study that first portrait carefully. You would think all of his important wheel clues would be hidden in the second portrait with him in his workshop, but I think he's telling us there are a lot of important clues in the first portrait where he looks like a refined gentlemen in his library.

      Delete
    23. Nice analysis, anon 00:28. Even I didn't notice that one!

      After reading your comment, I immediately tried to determine the symbolic message that Bessler was telling us using that right angle you found and I have a possible interpretation.

      I mentioned in an earlier comment here how the line from Bessler's middle finger in the second DT portrait to his third jacket button in the second portrait meant that the "Y" shaped lever KB found using Bessler's eyes and wig curl ends was the one located at the 3 o'clock position of the drum of one of his wheels. Now, you have found a RIGHT angle using lines that travel from one of the portraits to the other.

      On a clock dial there are only two times when the hour and minute hands form right angles which are at 9 and 3 o'clock either am or pm for each time. Because Bessler's pinky that the line from the second portrait reaches is on the RIGHT side of the first portrait, that could mean that the right angle you found is supposed to represent the clock hour when the hour hand points to the right of a clock dial which would be 3 o'clock either am or pm.

      This could be further confirmation that the "Y" shaped lever in the first portrait that one can find has the same orientation as the one located at the 3 o'clock position of one of Bessler's wheels.

      This is just one possible interpretation and there might be others.

      Sayer of Sooths

      Delete
  12. Je travaille depuis longtemps avec autocad 2D pour la transcription de mes idées, cela me permet de voir au premier abord le potentiel des arrangements, cela me fait gagner du temps par rapport au dessin sur papier.
    le dessin ne permet pas de tout appréhender sur les comportements des mécanismes car il y a a les rebonds , les oscillations, les contre-couples etc.
    le passage à la construction physique sans se lancer dans des extravagances devient évident pour cerner tous ces comportements.
    depuis peut j'utilise le simulateur Algodoo mais lui aussi est limité et d'fiabilité quelque fois douteuse. ce logiciel n'est pas souple d'utilisation et n'intègre pas la troisième dimension et limite la conception il n'est utile que pour faire de simple essais. l'investissement dans un logiciel crédible est trop onéreux pour un bricoleur comme moi.
    J.B

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have been working for a long time with autocad 2D for the transcription of my ideas, this allows me to see at first sight the potential of the arrangements, it saves me time compared to the drawing on paper.
    the drawing does not allow to understand everything on the behaviors of the mechanisms because there are the rebounds, the oscillations, the counter-couples etc.
    the transition to physical construction without embarking on extravagances becomes obvious to identify all these behaviors.
    since I can use the Algodoo simulator but it too is limited and sometimes doubtful reliability. this software is not flexible in use and does not integrate the third dimension and limits the design it is only useful for making simple tests. Investing in credible software is too expensive for a handyman like me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, for me it’s too expensive and too difficult to master at my age - but if I had been able to access such software, twenty years ago I might have given it a go.

      JC

      Delete
  14. People continue to describe Bessler’s wheel as a perpetual motion machine but it wasn’t. PM machines have routinely been described being isolated from external sources of energy, which I would have thought that everyone researching this field knew was impossible. Bessler’s wheel derived its energy from falling weights as he said himself, thus the force of gravity caused his weights to fall. The energy came from the action of the weights. Bessler’s wheel was enabled by gravity. Without the presence of gravity, theoretically in outer space, his wheels would not have moved.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  15. it can't be both "derived its energy from falling weights" and 'energy came from the action of the weights".
    he himself claimed it was a perpetual motion machine.
    being isolated from external sources of energy *is* a requirement for a pm machine!
    otherwise it's a fraud.
    and it's not impossible because gravity isn't a form of energy.
    if it was using an external source of energy then it wasn't a pm machine.
    if they understood this and agreed upon it, then they also understood gravity wasn't a source of energy.
    the two way wheels didn't need gravity.
    they only needed a push.
    this is why I keep saying no one gets the operation.
    if the two way didn't need gravity to start, then the one way didn't need it.
    continuous unbalancing weight distribution is not the solution.
    it is only an illusion.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is both, they are just two ways of saying the same thing.

      No he dismissed the words perpetual Motion because it can’t go on for ever, and he mentioned several times that the weights in his machine were the cause of the action.

      No fraud because in 1712 PM machines were supposed to be isolated from external energy sources, and clearly his machine required the force of gravity.

      Continuous imbalance is not an illusion, it’s a necessity.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Bessler said:

      "The mechanical wheel not only bears the name of the long sought perpetual motion machine; it deserves to be named for such motion. It uses one of the best known implements for mechanical power, namely, a true circular wheel which rotates about its central axis."

      falling weights implies power derived from gravity.
      action of the weights implies power derived from their manipulation by the mechanisms with which they are attached.
      2 different concepts.

      it is not clear they required the force of gravity.
      that is another illusion.
      which misleads everyone to think they operated by unbalanced weight distribution and gravity somehow must be the prime mover.
      the one way wheels vs. the two way wheels are tricking you.

      Delete
  16. Wow .. this thread has moved on. To address a few comments.

    To the poster who said they could add a force vector (a construction element) to a wheel and watch and plot an RKE gain as proof that wm2d could show PM, the comment is mischievous. With gravity turned ON and NO artificial force vectors or torques added (acting as a motor) then the arrangement is solely dependent on mass of components and their placements and interactions to create torque. No one imo has as yet demonstrated a legitimate PM wheel that gains momentum and is self-moving and everlasting until its parts break. This includes KB who showed a faultily built sim with one set of parts moving thru each other, that he claimed was irrelevant or inconsequential, which is not accepted by anyone proficient in the program. There were and are too many red flags in his work to be taken seriously as bona-fide. He will of course argue otherwise, however even and real world build closely to his specs did not accelerate and wasn't self-moving. Most recognise his concept as the familiar spring assist method, and could not be tweaked into a runner or close to it. The fact that he says he built thousands of sims based on this concept and got only 1 to work should raise a red flag in and off itself, imo.

    Next, it is not known whether wm2d could show a true gravity enabled PM wheel accelerating and gaining momentum and RKE. Yes, it does use known Laws of Physics and Mechanics including the Law of Levers etc (simple machines). What is not clear is whether B's. solution was within the Newtonian Laws and Mechanics or whether some part of his arrangement sits outside or alongside those axioms. Until a real world example is demonstrated with a complementary sim showing the same result that question can not be answered as yet. In the mean time sims are another tool at your disposal should you wish to use them in your bag of tricks. As mentioned some of the programs available are anecdotally not particularly reliable (e.g. Algodoo) in replicating real physical effects, however they are still adequate for modeling and design purposes. Generally the more expensive commercially used programs have a greater reliability and realism factor, imo.

    Lastly, B. said, paraphrased, that weights were the constituent parts of his PM device, from which it got it's everlasting movement. There is no doubt in my mind that either the one-way or two-way wheels would not work at all out in space, out of earths gravity field. Thus gravity force was an integral part of his runner machines and their apparent sustainable gain in momentum.

    IMO's !

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. -f wrote "... however even and real world build closely to his specs did not accelerate and wasn't self-moving."

      I assume that "real world build" you mentioned was the one made of Ken B's wheel design that was shown with a few photos by a second time poster on BWF years ago (IIRC he was "Dave W" from NZ). His wheel was completed about one week after he got a download of Ken's book by using parts from his other failed wheels. He probably didn't bother to read the precise instructions Ken gives in his book for making the 3 foot Gera prototype wheel and Ken warns in his book that anyone not following those instructions carefully may not get a model that will run continuously. Even so, that NZ guy said what he came up with was self starting from some positions but not others. I don't think we should judge a design based on just one person's build whether it fails or not. We need to see others trying to make models of the Ken B wheel, but better yet make some sims of it first.

      Delete
  17. You HAVE TO build the wheel physically, because it does not obey the current norm of physics. COE is directly built into the off-the-shelf simulators (if you turn on friction and gravity of course). You will see no result in simulators believe in me. Unless if you program one yourself :) With python it is not that hard to program a personal 2D physics simulator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having read the various comments I think my decision not publish any details about the design I’m hoping to get to work on soon is the right one. I became convinced some time ago that only a working wheel with full explanation of how and why it works, would serve to convince the world at large that this time it really works.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Lol! The REAL reason you don't want to reveal your design is because you know that as soon as you do all of your "friends" here will shoot it so full of holes that it will look like a hunk of Swiss cheese! Then you'll be right back to square one again with nothing! That's a bad place to be for a Bessler pm wheel chaser. Better to remain silent and just let everyone think that maybe, just maybe you might actually have a runner!

      Delete
    3. Yes John. Only a working wheel will be convincing. But you miss one point, if you disclose your design in a patent (or patent-like document) then hundreds of people will build it and may prove it for you in a week or so.

      Delete
    4. I decided several years ago if made a working model not to patent Bessler’s wheel. I’ve blogged about this a few times over the years and I don’t want to go over it all again but you can probably find what I said about it in the search form here.

      JC

      Delete
  18. John Collins : "Having read the various comments I think my decision not publish any details about the design I’m hoping to get to work on soon is the right one. I became convinced some time ago that only a working wheel with full explanation of how and why it works, would serve to convince the world at large that this time it really works."

    Hi John .. I think you have made the right decision there, for your circumstances. If you are successful the simmers out there will attempt to use their different programs and expertise to replicate what you achieved in real-world in sim-world. They might even suggest design improvements or ways to optimise your runner further. They will be able to clearly show how and where the excess energy and momentum comes from in support of your theory, and how sensitive the mechanical arrangements are. I'll come back to that.

    If you are unsuccessful they will also be able to approximate your build and further explore your theory of mechanical energy production potential. As we saw with Wubbly's grand efforts with wm2d in your last major outing. He is a master of presentation via video format so that anybody can watch a YouTube video of your wheel analogues and see and learn the processes he went thru to both build, optimise, and stress test the builds.

    FWIW what a sim can't do is circumvent the Conservation Laws of Mechanics. i.e. Conservation of Mechanical Energy ("In physical sciences, mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy. The principle of conservation of mechanical energy states that if an isolated system is subject only to conservative forces, then the mechanical energy is constant. If an object moves in the opposite direction of a conservative net force, the potential energy will increase; and if the speed (not the velocity) of the object changes, the kinetic energy of the object also changes.")

    You'll note that Mechanical Conservation of Energy is INCLUSIVE of Linear KE and Angular KE called Rotational Kinetic Energy.

    As we all are aware there are two other Mechanical Conservation Laws, that being Conservation of Linear Momentum, and Conservation of Angular Momentum. These last two Laws are quite separate and NOT interchangeable, yet by all accounts are both conserved quantities.

    "In mechanics, there are three fundamental quantities which are conserved. These are energy, momentum and angular momentum."

    FWIW if your build uses Galileo's simple machines (force multipliers) then a good sim program usually can show that action, and predicted result etc (e.g. Wubbly). What it can't do is build a two-way bridge between Linear Momentum and Angular Momentum quantities because they are quite separate, independent, Laws of Conservation. Unless unique simple machine mechanics allows this, is found, and can be duplicated in sim-world.

    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.

    My point being that if your build mechanics is a coordinated arrangement of simple machines that results in a runner then I believe simmers should be able to replicate an analoque of your build that is also a runner. Because you will have found and identified the physical pathway to hop between the Conservation Laws and extract usable energy that does Work. IMO.

    All The Best -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for an excellent response fletch. You touched on something I realised a few months ago and I’m sure it ensures that Bessler’s wheel complies to all the accepted mechanical laws and it is incorporated in my own design.

      I’ll write about it in my next blog - without giving too much away.

      JC

      Delete

Why did Bessler Use Embedded Codes?

It seems clear enough that Bessler had always intended to insert coded information embedded within his publications, because by applying a s...