## Friday 15 July 2022

### Johann Bessler’s Connectedness Principle - Apologies!

It seems that my blog about Johann Bessler’s Connectedness Principle met with considerable scepticism which I was disappointed to see, but I’m not surprised.  I wrote my ideas without any supporting information or drawings and I think that this is not the place to do this unless I do it properly.

I am absolutely determined to publish everything as soon as I can but doing it a bit at a time will not convince anyone.  So I’ve removed the details of the blog for now, but I will return to the subject later.

I am extremely busy with stuff to do with my recent house move and while the weather here is brilliant for what I have to do outside, I’m working hard during daylight hours and I’m too knackered in the evening to write or draw anything Bessler-related.  I’m 77 years old but very fit (for my age!) and this work is all-consuming.  I fell off a ladder a couple of days ago, nothing broken but a bit of bruising.  I was reducing the height and depth of a 12 foot high laurel hedge and I and the ladder tipped backwards, depositing me on the lawn.  Once I’ve caught up with these things which are so occupying my time and I have my workshop operating again, I shall return to my blog with more and better information.

Thanks for all your comments, but for now I must get on and finish with these mundane jobs so I can concentrate on the important things like Bessler’s wheel.

JC.

1. You have to be careful about using the word "fall". Maybe you should use the word "swing" instead? "Fall" implies only vertical motion taking place, while "swing" implies both vertical and horizontal motions taking place at the same time. I assume that all of the weights in your design are attached to the ends of levers and their collective motions keep the wheel out of balance as it turned.

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you are saying that one weight on a Bessler wheel's descending side would swing down through 90 degrees while four other weights, distributed around the rest of the wheel, would each swing up through 30 degrees.

Sounds plausible, but where is Bessler's Connectedness Principle in all of this? Are your swinging weights and levers working independently of each other or are they attached to each other with ropes or chains?

I think you will have trouble selling this version of Bessler's wheels because most consider them to have contained eight levers that one after another hit something inside of a drum's descending side to make eight noises per wheel rotation.

jason

1. John cannot let go of the number 5. It's stuck in his brain like a tumor and because of how long it's been there, it has now become inoperable. He will be babbling about five weights right up to his last breath. It's really sad because if he's wrong and Bessler didn't use five weights, then that means John will never get a runner no matter how many "clues" he thinks he's seeing in Bessler's drawings and words. It's also amazing how he explains you can get "about" eight thumps per wheel rotation from only five weights.

2. Sorry Jason, I missed half of the detail out, but I’m going to publish soon and my words will make more sense then, I hope!

JC

2. If the single weight falls three sections of an eight sectioned wheel, while the four other weights raise each one section, there would be the eight knocks per revolution with only five weights. I would buy it, because i don't believe the eight weight theory one bit.
RH46

1. Hi RH, I missed out some important details for which I apologise. A single weight would fall one section of a five section wheel. Each of the other four weights are only lifted one at a time with each single fall, within each one’s own section.

2. I did get the impression that that was what you meant.
The bit I'm not too keen on, is that it wouldn't give the 8 knocks per revolution. Doubled up it would give us 10, tripled would be 15, which could work, by only having the magic happen every other rotation. 7.5 ish, which is "about 8".
I'm all for exploring away from the deep ruts of the eight weight "assumption", but i don't think it is a good idea to lose sight of the 8 knocks heard by the witnesses, because this isn't a theory, it is a well documented fact.
In my opinion there is a contradiction in your reasoning, if you think that you are able to achieve PM, using Bessler's hidden clues, in Bessler's books about Bessler's wheel, that is incapable of making the same number of sounds per revolution, as Bessler's wheel.
PM being possible with only 5 knocks may well be possible, i just can't see it being found in the secret clues of a wheel with 8.
A few questions i would very much like the answer to are, a wheel with only one cross "thingy", how many knocks would that have made per revolution?
How many cross thingies need to be added to make the 8?
I would have thought that Bessler would have added more cross thingies to his wheels, if it was simply a question of making another one. So my guess is that the maximum number of cross thingies within a wheel, of only one PM principal thick, is the number needed to make 8 knocks. To increase the number of knocks, and subsequently increase the power of the wheel, additional wheels would need to be connected to the same shaft. This would give multiples of the eight knocks which could be staggered to one's heart's content.
Can we assume that 8 knocks is the limit? (per mechanism).
If so, is the limit related to space, which would imply a wheel of greater diameter, would allow for an increase in the number of cross thingies? Or is the limit related to scope of movement and synchronisation, which would imply that a wheel of 1/2 a mile would still be limited to the eight knocks?

3. @RH46

Imo, you like others mistakenly think that the word "creuze" which is translated as "crossbar" or as you say "cross-thingy" refers to something located inside of the drums of Bessler's wheels. I am convinced, however, that it really refers to metal pins that were inserted into externally located frame pieces to add pulley wheels to an overhead compound pulley hoist. It would have looked something like the one in this gif only maybe each frame could hold up to four pulleys with their pins and instead of a man pulling down on the rope, it was pulled down as it wrapped around the axle of one of Bessler's wheels as the wheel started turning from a standstill:

http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/hydraulicus/animatedfourpulley.gif

This kind of hoist was used to greatly lower the axle torque required to vertically lift an external load during dead lift tests of Bessler's wheels. The fact that he had to resort to this to lift a heavy external load shows how low the starting torques of his wheels really were.

PM Dreamer

4. I purposely used the words "cross thingy", because "thingy" can imply a multitude of possibilities, nothing specific, no particular signification as to the nature of the article which Bessler refers to, in a German or Latin word(s), that i wouldn't have a clue as to how to correctly translate. My inability to correctly understand what Bessler was referring to, with any accuracy, leaves the field open for much speculation. I think it is very unfortunate that there is so much ambiguity as to the meaning of Bessler's words, and/or the translations of them.
IMO, i can't see the cross "thingies" being anything remotely like what you are referring to. I am pretty convinced that they are an internal part of the drum.

3. John, I must say that your argument for 5 weights is EXTREMELY week. Sorry

1. jso, it is I that should apologise, I omitted too many details.

JC

4. Johann Bessler was not using the number five numerically but more philosophically and geometrically

5. John said .. "Bessler’s connectedness principle appears to be a vital part of the design in his so-called Perpetual Motion machine. He mentions it’s importance more than once in his Maschinen Tractate (MT) but what was it? He says that without its inclusion in a particular design, the machine won’t work."

HI john .. could you refresh my memory ? You said, more than once in MT his connectedness principle is mentioned. I know it is mentioned in the notes to MT9. Where else in MT (or anywhere) is it mentioned ?

"zusammen gehangten principo agiret" together hung principle (agiret)

"agiret" is the verb in the sentence and is a German word meaning "to perform/to act"

"zusammen gehangten" is the adjective i.e. the together hung principle.

When including the agiret verb .. acts/performs the together hung (connected) principle

So in your scenario given above all 5 weights movements are choreographed by physical connection ? By what physical means do you see this happening ?

-f

1. Grateful thanks to all the above commenters for taking the trouble to make your points, I always appreciate such feedback.There were some assumptions which I didn’t consider would happen. This is the problem with publishing some ideas without full supporting information and is a lesson I should have learned by now. It confirms my belief that nothing except a fully working model, or a complete explanation with drawings will be accepted.

I hope you will all forgive me for removing this blog, I can see it needs some severe revisions and I simply don’t have the time to do it at the moment. I’ll return with better information as soon as I can but for now the on-going mantra for me is “much to do, much to do.”

JC

2. Hi fletch- I missed out to much detail, sorry. I always call it the connectedness principle even though some say it should read movement principle. As Bessler states, you need in the wheel, crossbars (or crosses), weights, pulleys and cords or belts.

JC

3. JC said .. "Hi fletch- I missed out to much detail, sorry. I always call it the connectedness principle even though some say it should read movement principle. As Bessler states, you need in the wheel, crossbars (or crosses), weights, pulleys and cords or belts."

I favour Principle of "Movement" personally - it better fits my own theories about a special movement required, and better connects back to undisputed principles of excess weight, excess impetus, and preponderance, imo. Besides .. all things are connected or have a connectedness in one form or another inside a wheel i.e. direct or indirect influence. He does say several Creuze (Crosses, cross-bars, bars), pulleys and weights make for a faster runner, but no mention of a rope, belt, cord or chain imo, tho it seems logical to have them somewhere within to aid coordination of devices in motion and required movements imo. Doesn't seem like it needs to be a special principle in-and-of its own, imo.

FWIW .. your 5 weights theory has merit imo, because B. pounds the number 5 as you said. The format, and how that becomes significant, and why, is the continuing mystery to be resolved imo.

Falling off ladders is overrated. Take care !

-f

6. First, sorry to read about JC's fall in his new yard. Actually, any guy who's 77 should not be getting on any ladders! One fall could result in a broken hip, fractured skull, brain hemorrhage, or worse. It happened to a neighbor down the street from me only a few weeks ago. He fell off of a 24 foot long ladder and broke his neck while trying to save a buck by cleaning the leaves out of his rain gutters. They buried him last week.

As far as the 8 versus 5 weight argument goes, we only know of the 8 noises being reported for one wheel. FAWK, Bessler may have been able to use his "connectedness principle" to make wheels with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or more weights work. IIRC, in MT Bessler mentions that Leupold's wheel could be made to work if he had used Bessler's connectedness principle. I checked it out and Leupold's wheel had TWELVE weights in it at the ends of short levers. Not 5, not 8, but 12!

What really counts is to get something that actually WORKS no matter how many weights and levers it has! We can worry about adapting it for different numbers of levers and weights later. I understand that John is busy with his house move now and will get little done with his Bessler research. As someone once said "Life gets in the way" and we've all had to deal with this frustrating reality.

I do agree, however, that he needs to start publishing drawings of his design ASAP. They can then be quickly simmed by others to see if they are runners. If not, then back he must go to the drawing board to try to correct his basic design. The problem with having a wheel based on, say, ten different clues is that if one misinterprets a single clue, then all he gets for his efforts is another nonrunner. John may have to use feedback from simmers a dozen or more times until he finally gets an accurate clue based runner.

The sooner John begins, the sooner he can find success if he's meant to. The sad reality of life is that the clock of the universe just keeps ticking without caring about our plans and we all only have a limited number of seconds left to achieve our goals in this life. Every second wasted on distracting nonsense lowers one's chance of ever achieving those goals.

Anonymous and PROUD of it!

1. Thank you for your comments APoi. M your advice about not climbing ladders at my age chimed perfectly with my older daughter’s comments, (she was a nurse for many years). But we do what we think we must, but I’ll take more care in future. I’ve got to get what I think is the answer out in public.

JC

2. @AAPOI!
You are exactly right about that Leupold wheel that Bessler mentions in MT. In case no one's seen it yet, you can see the drawing in the original copy of Leupold's "Theatrum Machinarum General" here:

https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/zoom/3583255

It's the wheel labeled Fig. XI in the lower right hand corner of the page. The problem with the design is getting those levers to flip to the left as they pass over the ccw rotating wheel's 12:00 position. Bessler would have had to add his connecting cords and springs to make it work for Leupold.

7. IF properly adjusted it should run on a single mechanism, after that the more the merrier and more power ..... 3 4 5 6 8 does not matter

1. 8 bruits par tour de roue!!
j'en dÃ©duit 8 impacts moteur donc on peut spÃ©culer sur nombre de poids.
Si il n'y avait que 8 poids donc :
quatre moteur dans la descente, quatre contres moteur (Contre couple lors de l'impact) dans la montÃ©e.
cela me semble ne pas convenir!!.
Je pense que si ll y avait 8 bruits d'impact ceuci se fesaient dans la descente.
On peut penser que 8 autres ou plus se rÃ©initialisaient dans la montÃ©e et en silence

8 noises per wheel turn!!
I deduce 8 engine impacts so we can speculate on number of weights.
If there were only 8 weights then:
four engine in the descent, four engine risers (Against torque on impact) in the climb.
That doesn’t seem right!!
I think if there were eight impact noises, they’d be pounding down the hill.
We can think of 8 or more resetting in the climb and in silence

Speculation !!!
J.B

8. I can somewhat relate with ladders and their dark intentions , i was busy with the ceiling once when the ladder slipped away ,as i gracefully slid along i landed one foot on top the ladder and the other beneath , broke one toe , one could say my toe broke my fall .

good luck further John.
-jb

9. Thanks JB

JC

10. Gravittea been to Chicago lately

11. Message to all commenters. I ignore “the sound of about eight weights…”. Because they can only be assigned to the Kassel wheel, a two-way wheel. I am trying to use Bessler’s clues to make a one-way wheel, which he implies needs five weights each in its own 5th segment. We know that people are fixated on the number eight, just like I am on the number five, which is fine if you are designing a two-way wheel but to me it seems logical to follow the clues which are definitely designed to help with the construction of his first one-way wheel.

JC

1. I think if there was a single mention of any of Bessler's wheels making five impact sounds per rotation, then your case for five levers would be greatly bolstered. But, unfortunately, all you seem to have is Bessler's use of the number five and a pentagon you found in the Merseburg wheel drawing. Someone else might draw lines on that Merseburg wheel drawing and get a hexagon or an octagon out of it!

Ken B and his fans (more like disciples) claim that ALL of Bessler's smaller ONE way wheels used exactly eight levers and he claims he got this from those DT portrait clues that he specializes in. He, like you did in the past at least, considers Bessler's two giant twelve feet diameter, TWO way wheels to EACH have contained two separate, counterpoised, one way wheels placed side by side next to each other on the section of axle inside of the drum.

During the rotation of the Merseburg or Kassel twelve feet diameter, two way wheel in either direction, however, all of the levers inside of its internal one way wheel that was forced to undergo retrograde rotation would have been locked down against stops in the drum by additional mechanisms and so were not making any impact sounds. That would then leave the other actual driving one way wheel inside of the drum making all of the eight impact sounds with its eight active and free to move levers.

I agree that Bessler's smaller than twelve feet diameter, one way wheels could have had less than eight levers making impact sounds during their rotations which would allow for a wheel with only five levers. Ken B can only assume that all of Bessler's one way wheels, regardless of diameter, contained exactly eight levers based on his interpretations of the DT portrait clues. He may be right or wrong. Whether or not he is right will ultimately come down to whether or not one can make a Bessler type OOB wheel work with less than eight levers.

How few a number of levers might work? Stephen Glorioso has been commenting recently that he's doing it with only TWO levers! If that's true, then there's no reason why five levers could not have been used.

PM Dreamer

2. PM said, “ unfortunately, all you seem to have is Bessler's use of the number five and a pentagon you found in the Merseburg wheel drawing. Someone else might draw lines on that Merseburg wheel drawing and get a hexagon or an octagon out of it!” But I will show you later that there is far better proof of the use of the pentagon.

JC

3. " But I will show you later that there is far better proof of the use of the pentagon".
Bessler made many comments about he will show this, show that, reveal it, explain it, later. Unfortunately he never got around to actually explaining much of anything, in a way that actually allowed us to understand how it worked.
One day someone is going to find the solution, and that day will be an important day for many PM seekers. Those who have been sharing their thoughts, and ideas, who have been actively contributing to the collective research of our common goal, will be able to claim a part of the credit.
Those who know exactly how it works, but keep everything to themselves, because it's top secret, will be able to claim nothing. They will not receive any credit whatsoever, because there will be no record of what their knowledge was before the solution was known. They will not have a leg to stand on, even if they did actually have the answer, but just couldn't finalise it.
Those who want everything will end up with nothing. Seekers who failed miserably.
The only consolation will be that they were right to seek.

4. Obviously I disagree with you RH, and I will publish what I know when it’s ready. I still would like to build a working model first. I get that this is frustrating for you and others of a similar opinion but it would be better with a working model plus full explanations how I found the solution. If you think that this is unreasonable look what happened another author who shared what he believed to be the solution. No one believed his solution was valid, while I don’t think this will happen to my book, a working model would certainly convince the majority of two things. Firstly it is the solution and secondly it is the same design as Johann Bessler’s.

JC

5. “ Those who have been sharing their thoughts, and ideas, who have been actively contributing to the collective research of our common goal, will be able to claim a part of the credit.”

How do you reckon this? Do you mean that those who have pursued this can rest assured it was not impossible in the end, or that they literally deserve a part of the credit, financial or otherwise, no matter how rubbish their thoughts, ideas and so called contributions they shared are?

6. Those who have been having "rubbish thoughts, ideas and so called contributions" are the ones who will have to be content with the consolation that they were right to try. Their "rubbish thoughts" will not have contributed one bit toward the solution.
Those who got absolutely everything right, but kept it all secret, because they wanted it all for themselves, cannot have any claim to have contributed to the solution, because they didn't. They can scream from the rooftops that they worked it all out because they are amazingly brilliant, that the inventor used telepathy to steal their ideas, the ones they wouldn't tell anybody, to their heart's content, they will not have a leg to stand on.
Those who shared their thoughts, that actually contributed to the discovery of the solution, which will become clear once the solution is found, will be able to claim some degree of credit.
Some form of recognition would certainly be justified, i wouldn't go so far as to say financial but definitely otherwise.

7. chicago... possible later this year

8. The only way to move the wheel is to have the weight move to the center of the wheel from the perimeter. In the center it basically disappears and on the perimeter it has the greatest moment arm, and the most gravity working on the weight

9. Gravittea whenever you come Bessler's design will be waiting for you plus all the data of of the motion how do you feel about building a 42, 000 w per hour generator is 30 ft tall enough for you just kidding I also scaled it down to approximately 6 ft which should take care of about I don't know three or four household needs

10. PM Dreamer so I tried one lever for shitz and giggles still works fine

11. For the people who say I don't share anything I'll say it again IXOYE Go Fish Jesus Christ God's son savior

13. As far as John being believed because he published another book or claims to have a working model is concerned, I think he's being overly optimistic. If it's ever actually finished, his book may sell some copies to fans and visitors to this blog and his websites, but it will only be one of about 1,000 new titles being listed over on Amazon every single day! A new book listed there is like a grain of sand added to all the ones on a beach! A "working" model? His last attempt back in September, 2020 was a mess and never resulted in a working sim.

Once he gets his latest new house move finished, its hedges trimmed, and is settled in, then he will finally be ready to build again to "prove" his design. Sounds good. But, his best option, imo, is to stop wasting time trying to prove a design with a working model, publish what he thinks is actually Bessler's design, and just try for a working sim made by someone else. But, even if someone manages to make that working sim for him, he should expect others to immediately question it's validity by saying the sim is faulty or the claim of its success is a hoax. There will also be some who will just say that it's not really Bessler's design because of this or than clue that it does not include and that they intend to finally reveal the "real" secret design Bessler used.

Trying to get credit for having solved the Bessler wheel mystery is something that will be very difficult to do. Only if a wheel is produced that matches all of the clues everyone accepts and also starts to be physically manufactured and widely sold, then its rediscoverer MIGHT finally be credited with having found Bessler's long lost secret. This is probably why most pm chasers couldn't care less about rediscovering the exact design Bessler used. They are all doing their own thing and will continue to do so despite what John, Ken B, or anyone else says and does. It's a sad situation, but it IS reality.

14. I don’t think it’s a sad situation at all, I think it’s extremely hopeful, and the solution will be presented soon, if not by me then by another researcher. Given that we here are largely of the belief that Bessler was genuine, we therefore know it is possible it can only be a matter of time before someone succeeds.

I also believe that when the solution is revealed it will be clear that it fits Bessler’s clues beyond doubt.

JC

15. I agree with you on that John. When someone does finally find the solution, there will be little doubt whether it does or does not correspond with Bessler's wheels. Either it will be blatantly obvious that it has nothing to do with his, or pretty clear that it is a reproduction of his wheels. I think it will be the latter, which will have the advantage of clearing his name of fraudulent accusations.

16. Thanks Robin. JC

17. I have base. support arms, bearings etc for my new 16 ft here on hand

12. From pages 254 and 255 of Percy Verance's 1916 book "Perpetual Motion":

"The author of this book has known many Perpetual Motion workers so confident and so enthusiastic that unhampered with extreme discretion, they announced that they were near enough to the solution of this ages-old puzzle that they were certain of success. A little less discretion, with the slightest disregard or even carelessness about the absolute truth could have easily led them to announce that they had such a working machine. The author has indeed known a few such announcements. It is therefore, not surprising that in the history of Perpetual Motion labors, instances can be found where the tireless, but enthusiastic worker being full of confidence, and not secretive, and with the least bit of human carelessness about the truth have announced the actual discovery and successful operation of the machine. We will undertake to say that there have been thousands of just such instances during the last three or four centuries, probably tens of thousands. It is probable that such an instance could be found in every township in the United States. It is not, therefore, surprising that two instances can be found in persons of sufficient personal eminence to give credence and weight to their stories. Such we conceive the facts with reference to the Marquis and the Councillor. Each thought what he told when telling it to be a harmless stretch of the truth, and felt sure that he could protect himself by a very little added perfection to his device. How many many Perpetual Motion devices have been perfect and ready for successful operation except for "one little thing," which the inventor felt sure of finding.

The Marquis and Councillor by their little indiscretion, and their puerile carelessness about the truth, each made himself neither famous, nor infamous, but ridiculous in history."

Verance was obviously not a believer in Bessler's wheel being genuine (note that he refers to Bessler as "The Councillor"). But his point is well taken. One can get so emotionally invested in his quest for pm that it can begin to make him delusional to the point of thinking he really has the solution when, in reality, he still does not have sufficient evidence to prove that he does. That delusional high he achieves may be so intoxicating that he will, without being aware of it, actually avoid any further research that might reveal evidence that he does not have a runner.

I suspect that this explains those pm chasers who suffer from chronic procrastination and will drag out their building for years. Some will actually come to a complete stop and do no further research claiming that it is unnecessary. There have even been those who do this and still go ahead trying to obtain a patent on their sure to work, but unproven designs. Fortunately, the US Patent Office at least, immediately applies the brakes to their enthusiasm by requiring a working physical model which these inventors cannot provide.

1. Percy Verance was the pseudonym of Henry Dircks. He wrote two volumes in his Perpetuum Mobile; or A History of the Search for Self-Motive Power. Fantastic source. He was right to…..up to a point.

JC

13. And the beat goes on!

https://relativity.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/animatedportrait.gif?1344277865890

14. Our planet is ON FIRE!

Right now in the US we are facing a week of 90+ degree Fahrenheit temps for about half the population and 100+ for about a quarter of the population. New record high temperatures are being reported from dozens of towns across the nation. On the other side of "the pond" in Europe they are having their own heat wave to deal with. England just recorded its highest ever temperature only a day or so ago of 41 degrees Centigrade or about 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Portugal and Spain have had over a 1,000 heat deaths in the last few days. As in England, only a few percent of their populations have air conditioning in their homes. The governments are opening "cooling centers" for people, but then there's the problem of transporting people to them. Over in China, workers sealed up in those plastic hazmat suits and checking people for Covid are dropping like flies. Heat stroke can be FATAL if not promptly treated. Stay hydrated and avoid any strenuous work out in the Sun. Stick to the shadows whenever possible.

I just saw a report that the scientists up in Greenland are saying that the ice there is melting faster than ever and they now have daytime high temperatures of about 60 degrees so you can easily walk around without wearing a jacket or sweater. No information on what's going on down in Antarctica, but I think it's still cooler down there.

While all of this nightmare is going on, most people have forgotten that human activity caused Climate Change is responsible and are demanding lower costs per gallon for fossil fuels so inflation can be lowered. Once those prices come down expect their driving and waste of fuel to greatly increase as even more carbon is blown off into the atmosphere. Result? Worsening of Climate Change so that future summer heat waves will be even worse and more prolonged. Maybe we in the US and Europe will have to face heat waves that last nonstop from early July through to late August with temperatures near 115 degrees Fahrenheit. Heat deaths will rise into the TENS of thousands. With increasing demand, expect the price of air conditioners to skyrocket and the extra electrical power they need to cause blackouts all over the place. The fossil fuel industry's "solution"? Simple. They want to DOUBLE oil production in the next decade!

Happy Climate Change summer everyone!

Anonymous and PROUD of it!

1. Well said AaPoi. Interested to know if you think Bessler’s wheel will help to resolve the situation?

JC

2. Because plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis the Bessler would not be good for the environment if it caused a reduction of carbon emissions

3. But it could take 150 years to get back to pre-industrial levels.

JC

4. https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/i/JEEB1717/Besslerwpl.gif

5. Yes anon 16:10 (who I assume is "JEEB1717" of lost Bessler book fame) it is a tragedy and I fear it's going to get a lot more tragic in the near future. (Nice gif, btw. Did your friend Hans make it for you?)
Climate change is going to be the defining issue of this century and overcoming it will push our technological innovating abilities to their limits. But, maybe that's a good thing in the long run. When the air finally clears of carbon and temperatures drop, we will have an entirely new planet awaiting us. We need to try to stay positive about it despite the recent grim news.

6. @JC

If Bessler's secret had been revealed 300 years ago and developed since then, most likely we would have no Climate Change now! But today if the secret is revealed, it might still need decades of improvements to finally make his wheels' power outputs high enough so that they could be used to replace all of the steam turbines in our fossil fuel burning power plants assuming that's even possible. We don't have enough time for those improvements to take place, imo. We need practical solutions ASAP!

I think what could make a big difference is if we can make pollutionless nuclear fusion power plants whose only fuel is hydrogen which we have plenty of. Those could result in an all electrically powered world and there would also be plenty of power to begin "scrubbing" the carbon out of the atmosphere with giant building size machines that would process air 24/7. As that carbon was removed, it would be buried deep in the Earth where most of it originally came from. We'd then let it just stay down there along with a lot of unused fossil fuels for the rest of eternity. Unfortunately, despite investing billions, the progress made with fusion reactors is still not that impressive. Hopefully some big breakthrough with their design is just around the corner.

Right now humanity is in a race against the clock to begin getting totally away from the use of fossil fuels for power generation. But those making big \$\$\$'s off of selling us fossil fuels will continue to pretend that the problem is not real. They will say its danger is exaggerated, the science showing it is happening is "flawed", or that Climate Change is a "natural process" and the Earth will eventually automatically cool itself off somehow (if the human race all died off that would eventually happen!). They will tell you it's probably been even hotter in the past.

They really don't think there's a need to do anything today and are actually trying to delay anything being done by filling as many voters confused brains with as much misinformation about the seriousness of the problem as they possibly can. The fossil fuel industry's message is simple. Just ignore Climate Change and it will all eventually go away someday. Well, the world has mostly ignored it for the last 20 years and it's worse now than ever! What will happen after another 20 years of if it continues to be ignored? It won't be good, that's for sure. Anyone now under 60 years old will probably still be around then to find out.

Anonymous and PROUD of it!

15. JC this is your blog and place to post your thoughts on BW, not sure why you felt you had to remove the last post because of negative comments.

Anyone have a copy of what JC published then removed? I would have loved to have read his comments on the Connectedness Principle.

Speaking of the Connectedness Principle, didn't JB say you could not create a working device without it. That said, connectivity to me sounds a lot like cording controlling internal movements of levers/weights. I won't say KB's wheel is right, but it is an example of cording controlling the movements of the levers and weights in the wheel, so we can at minimum learn from that example.

1. Sorry I removed it but I got disappointed at the negativity and rather than go into long explanation to justify what I wrote it was easier to remove it and wait for the chance to do a longer explanation in a book.

I’ve found over the last nine years or so that long blogs lose reader’s attention some times. Also It’s hard to keep writing interesting blogs with out giving too much away.

I’ll post something of interest very soon.

JC

2. Anon 19:11 wrote: "I won't say KB's wheel is right, but it is an example of cording controlling the movements of the levers and weights in the wheel, so we can at minimum learn from that example."

For those who haven't seen the infamous Ken B wheel video yet, it's at:

He says it's based on an actual sim but was greatly slowed down for the video so you can study the lever motions. The colored lines between the levers are cords. The straight lines are cords that are tight and the curved lines are cords that are loose because their attachment points to the levers are too close together to make them tight. Apparently the sim program he used represents loose cords with curving lines and that caused someone over on the bw forum to nickname the wheel the "spaghetti wheel"!. In an actual wheel turning at high speed, however, all of the loose cords should be curved out away from the axle due to the centrifugal forces working on them. In his video all of the cords look like they are in the same plane and would have to constantly rub together and eventually fray and break. But he says that they were carefully arranged into five separate planes so that no two cords ever rubbed together. That means that the levers Bessler used had to have been at least several inches wide at a minimum which agrees with the thicknesses of the various wheels Bessler constructed.

I agree with anon 19:11 that some sort of system of coordinating cords or ropes was critical to making Bessler's wheels work. Some say that what Ken B shows is too complicated. Others think it is not. Probably 99% of the overbalanced type pm wheels I have ever seen do not use any cords. They all have one thing in common. None of them work!

3. "I agree with anon 19:11 that some sort of system of coordinating cords or ropes was critical to making Bessler's wheels work. Some say that what Ken B shows is too complicated. Others think it is not. Probably 99% of the overbalanced type pm wheels I have ever seen do not use any cords. They all have one thing in common. None of them work!"

That is correct they do not work , they share the same fundamental flaws , with cords or without cords .

Saying cords make a overbalance non runner in to a runner is like saying cords make a yo-yo or top perpetual , the underlying cause for a non runner does not get overridden by applying cords.

4. " the underlying cause for a non runner does not get overridden by applying cords".
Yes is does, cords are magic.
I am going to put some cords on my current time machine project, and it is definitely going to work, thanks to Ken.
A working time machine is only days away.

5. Better go and plug some cords in to MT13 , hurry up to claim your name in history RH46.

Cords circumvent the laws of physics , hang some on your hair and lift yourself up by the hair.

6. "hurry up to claim your name in history RH46."
There is no rush, i will have a time machine.

7. String theory is just a precursor to cord theory

8. I'm a bit concerned about string theory rendering my time machine useless.
As promised, adding cords to my time machine, did make it work. I can actually manage to go forward in time, and backwards, over any period i wish.
The problem is string theory (invisible magic strings), which has the inconvenience of interconnecting absolutely everything in the whole universe, and this causes the whole universe to go backward, and forward in time, not just me and my time machine. I hope you were not too inconvenienced by the recent time travelling you, and the entire universe, were subjected to over a period of about 4 million years.
My concern now is that I'm not entirely sure "when we are" at present. We are all in the same place in time, irrespective of when it actually is, and nothing whatsoever has actually changed, so we can just pretend i didn't cause the universe to travel through time. I've taken the cords off the machine, so as to be sure nobody else starts messing with time.

9. Many here seem to be forgetting Bessler's mentioning in MT that Leupold's wheel could only work if he used Bessler's "connectedness principle" in it. The words "connectedness principle" imply that an OOB wheel's levers had to be connected together in some way. How to do that? One could use gears or rods, but ropes have a big advantage over these. Ropes are simpler to make, lightweight, flexible, and much quieter than using chains. They can be tight or slack.

If they are attached just right to the levers, they can allow the levers to rotate around their pivots at different speeds relative to each other at different places around the wheel. On a wheel's descending side you want the levers' weights to be closer to the rim of the wheel and moving slower toward it. On the ascending side the levers have to be moving around their pivots much faster so their weights will also move faster. There is an interesting quote from AP on page 340 that is:

"But the weights which rest must, in a flash, be raised upwards, and it is this that Wagner cannot force himself to accept."

Those weights that "rest" were probably at the bottom of the wheel and going from the descending side to the ascending side and then they are somehow made to rise "in a flash" as their levers swung around their pivots with increased speed. It must have been that sudden rising motion of the weights attached to the levers on the ascending side that kept Bessler wheel's overbalanced as they turned. I think it could only have been a combination of ropes and stretched springs that made this possible.

10. Its is fine to have a principle of connectedness , or a principle of anything at all , it is not fine to assume or claim that levers connected with cords magicly bypasses law of the levers , you can connect levers anyway you want with cords you will not bypass distance vs force and energy in and out of simple levers , proven fact , if you have something that bypasses that then go ahead and proof it we won't mind eating hat , it would be a wonderful sight and laws would have to be re written.

The same applies for cords and springs vs lever connections , energy in vs energy out being out of the ordinary accepted laws , if you have that then proof it .

No minute coordinated manipulation of levers connected with cords at any different speed of rotation will bypass the laws of the levers , the laws of the lever applies at all scales and all speeds within the boundary of our known capabilities.

11. I think how Bessler's wheels worked was actually very simple. Their levers were interconnected and counter balanced with springs in such a way that, when a wheel was stationary, the center of gravity of all of its weights was located slightly onto one side of the center of the axle. But, that balance was a very precarious one.

With the center of gravity offset like that, releasing the wheel's drum would allow it to immediately begin turning. That rotation would of course cause the center of gravity of the weights to begin to swing down below the center of the axle. That's when the magic happened which was only possessed by Bessler's particular design. As soon as the wheel started turning, it would upset the extremely delicate balance of the interconnected levers and they then automatically and immediately responded by trying to restore that balance again.

The turning drum was always trying to lower the weights' center of gravity and slide it under the center of the axle toward what was called the "punctum quietus" or equilibrium position. But, at the exact same time, the interconnected levers were independently working to restore their upset delicate balance again by raising the center of gravity of the weights and sliding it away from that equilibrium position under the center of the axle.

As long as these two opposed motions of the center of gravity of a wheel's weights were equal, the location of the center of gravity would remain stationary on the wheel's descending side and provide torque to accelerate the drum as it rotated around the weights' stationary center of gravity.

Yes, it was all very simple...in principle at least. However, good luck finding the exact way Bessler did it! Who knows how many other tens of thousands of pm chasers have tried and failed to do so in the last 300 years...some who knew the details of the Bessler story and many who did not or had never even heard of him. As Bessler sarcastically told Wagner:

"Jump up and down with gusto yourself, then, Wagner - then start tearing your hair out, because you'll soon find, you splendid mechanic, that this is a nut you can't crack!"

God only knows how many bushels of hair have been torn out of pm chasers' scalps trying to crack that extremely hard nut since the time of Bessler and Wagner! How incredibly exhilarating it must have been for Bessler to realize that he alone was the only person on planet Earth that knew exactly how to build a working pm wheel! Even though he never sold his invention, wouldn't having that god-like feeling have been worth all of the anguish he had to endure to achieve final success? How many reading this are prepared to also endure such suffering? Pm wheel chasing is not for those looking for quick and easy victories. It is for those who can do the equivalent of crawling through mud and eating dirt and then doing it the next day and the next day and the next day and the...

You have all been warned of what's in store for you future pm wheel chasers of the world.

12. "I think how Bessler's wheels worked was actually very simple. Their levers were interconnected and counter balanced with springs in such a way that, when a wheel was stationary, the center of gravity of all of its weights was located slightly onto one side of the center of the axle. But, that balance was a very precarious one.

With the center of gravity offset like that, releasing the wheel's drum would allow it to immediately begin turning. That rotation would of course cause the center of gravity of the weights to begin to swing down below the center of the axle. That's when the magic happened which was only possessed by Bessler's particular design. As soon as the wheel started turning, it would upset the extremely delicate balance of the interconnected levers and they then automatically and immediately responded by trying to restore that balance again."

Carefully counter balanced levers have no force to rotate because they are balanced , they will not automatically keep rotating since there is no force difference in a balanced lever , you need a force applied on them to move them.

Springs that counter balance against a lever must change its direction of force as such a wheel rotates since the springs would be fixed ,their force direction would remain fixed too , heads up : the direction of force from gravity on the weight of such levers will always remain downwards , when the levers rotate along the wheel and they go to the other side that direction no longer can counter balance against such a fixed spring direction.

"As long as these two opposed motions of the center of gravity of a wheel's weights were equal, the location of the center of gravity would remain stationary on the wheel's descending side and provide torque to accelerate the drum as it rotated around the weights' stationary center of gravity."

If the location of the center of gravity remains stationary and the opposed motions were equal then there would be no rotation , you could likely measure torque but there cannot be rotational motion unless the wheel is allowed to follow the center of gravity and the center of gravity must be allowed to move .

I can understand the thinking here but there are some common pitfalls.

13. "God only knows how many bushels of hair have been torn out of pm chasers' scalps trying to crack that extremely hard nut since the time of Bessler and Wagner!"

Thanks for that, anon 19:39. Now I know how John lost his hair! Lol!

14. "God only knows how many bushels of hair have been torn out of pm chasers' scalps trying to crack that extremely hard nut since the time of Bessler and Wagner!"

"Thanks for that, anon 19:39. Now I know how John lost his hair! Lol!"

15. @anon 21:28

You wrote: "Carefully counter balanced levers have no force to rotate because they are balanced , they will not automatically keep rotating since there is no force difference in a balanced lever , you need a force applied on them to move them."

I think you misunderstood what anon 19:39 is suggesting. He's saying that the cords interconnecting the levers and the springs attaching the levers to the drum automatically and continuously adjust the angles of the levers as the drum rotates around the axle's center. That automatic adjustment then keeps the CoG of the weights attached to the ends of the levers fixed on the drum's descending side despite the rotation of the drum. As long as that CoG is not located directly under the center of the axle, it will apply torque to accelerate the drum.

This is somewhat similar to what would happen if you placed a ball bearing at the bottom of a perfectly hemispherical bowl that was placed on top of a table. As you tilt the bowl toward any of its sides, the ball bearing will roll a bit but its center will always remain fixed at its original location. In the case of Bessler's wheels we can think of the offset CoG of the weights as being like the center of the ball bearing and the rotating drum being like the tilting bowl.

PM Dreamer

16. Now that I've thought more about it, the center of the ball bearing in the bowl will not remain in its original location as the bowl is tilted on the table, but its distance from the table top's surface will remain constant. Unfortunately, all analogies have their limitations.

PM Dreamer

17. "I think you misunderstood what anon 19:39 is suggesting. He's saying that the cords interconnecting the levers and the springs attaching the levers to the drum automatically and continuously adjust the angles of the levers as the drum rotates around the axle's center. That automatic adjustment then keeps the CoG of the weights attached to the ends of the levers fixed on the drum's descending side despite the rotation of the drum. As long as that CoG is not located directly under the center of the axle, it will apply torque to accelerate the drum."

Look , take a lever then attach the weight to the right end , now attach your spring wherever you want to counter the weight force such that the weight is held towards your descending side , attach it to a wheel.

Or just draw it on a piece of paper ,start with your lever on the descending side , notice the force direction of the spring and weight ,rotate the paper around until your lever is on the ascending side .

Take a look again , the spring has a fixed force direction , the weight direction of force is still downward , but the spring and weight will no longer act against each other to move the level where you want it , that's the reality of the situation , a spring needs to change its force direction because it is fixed to the wheel and gets turned around with it.

There will be no "automagicly" turning of the lever and spring , the only "automagicly" is downwards.

18. @PMD
I think many forget this quote from DT:

"NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the center of gravity (imo, this would have been better translated as "center of rotation" or "center of the axle"). To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must forever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing."

When I read this I immediately think of the mechanisms inside of Bessler's wheels acting like a dog chasing its own tail. No matter how fast the dog turns around, his nose can never touch his tail. I think of the point of equilibrium under the axle of a wheel like the dog's tail and the COG of the weights inside of the drum of a Bessler wheel like the dog's nose. The separation between a dog's tail and nose stays constant no matter how fast he spins around and the separation between the COG's point of equilibrium and the actual location of the COG of the weights inside of the drum also stays constant. The difference, however, is that as Bessler's wheels sped up, that separation distance must have gradually decreased which is why their speeds running freely eventually leveled off and became some maximum constant speed otherwise the build up of CF in a wheel would tear it apart.

@anon17:22
What you say is certainly true for a single lever with a spring attached to it. But, the situation becomes different inside of a wheel where there are several interconnected weighted levers and each lever has its own suspension spring. Take another look at that Ken B video someone gave a link to above. The counter balancing between its eight levers remains stable as the wheel rotates even though the levers between 6:00 and about 3:00 are constantly swinging around their individual pivots. However, despite all of that motion, the orientations of the eight levers is exactly repeated after every 45 degrees of CW rotation. That lever swinging action is automatic and takes no rotational kinetic energy from the wheel itself. As a result, the COG of the eight weights always stays slightly to the right of the axle center and below it so it can provide torque to the wheel. I think it's really an amazing design he's found and I've never seen anything like it elsewhere. I can't say for certain if it's exactly Bessler's design, but I would bet that, if it is not, then it's probably very close to what Bessler must have used.

PS Dogs may chase their tails, but as this gif shows, cats put a lot more energy into it!

https://media4.giphy.com/media/OU7akB4CMwg0/giphy.gif

19. "When I read this I immediately think of the mechanisms inside of Bessler's wheels acting like a dog chasing its own tail. No matter how fast the dog turns around, his nose can never touch his tail. I think of the point of equilibrium under the axle of a wheel like the dog's tail and the COG of the weights inside of the drum of a Bessler wheel like the dog's nose. The separation between a dog's tail and nose stays constant no matter how fast he spins around and the separation between the COG's point of equilibrium and the actual location of the COG of the weights inside of the drum also stays constant. The difference, however, is that as Bessler's wheels sped up, that separation distance must have gradually decreased which is why their speeds running freely eventually leveled off and became some maximum constant speed otherwise the build up of CF in a wheel would tear it apart."

Thats all good for dogs with intact tails , now consider this

The dogs nose and tail remains fixed to the dogs body at fixed positions as he spins around , the tail follows , the head chases , both of them move while he spins around

If his tail remained in one spot which is the point of rest below the axle , and his head which is the center of gravity were to remain at a constant distance from his tail , he would not be spinning at all , the head must chase the tail to spin.

The head cannot chase the tail if the tail and the head remains at a constant location.

A magical dog.

20. Anon 21.51.
I don't think Ken's wheel is a runner myself, but what i think is irrelevant.
It is what you think that i find curious. You give the impression of thinking that it is the best attempt in the whole wide world, there isn't another that comes anywhere near it, and that we all should be building Ken's version of Bessler's wheel.
Why don't you just build the bloody thing, and prove to all us non believers in Kens stupid wheel, that we are the stupid ones, because we couldn't recognise such a marvellous, wonderfully amazing wheel, even if we were to get run over by it?
What is the reason behind your insistence that Kens wheel is a runner?
We all know that John doesn't give a great deal of credit to Ken's book, which is perfectly understandable, so why do you bother?
I think the best thing to do with regard Ken's wheel is to shut up about it, or build it.
There must be a reason that you refuse to build it, what is the reason?
Anybody in their right mind who actually believes that they have the answer, would build it. Why don't you? Why doesn't Ken? Why hasn't any of his fan club who believe it to be the answer?
Do you all have less brain cells than Bessler's wheel has weights?
Sorry about my rant John, but you are not the only one who finds Ken's disciples to be a total pain in the butt.

21. @RH46
I'm not anon 21:51, but you actually seem angry at him for even mentioning the Ken B wheel. All he did was say he was impressed by the design. He also said that he's not sure if it's the same as Bessler's although he thinks Bessler probably used something similar to it maybe because of its eight levers, springs, and the connectedness principle it uses? These are all features that most believe Bessler actually used in his wheels. I also don't think anon 21:51 was trying to get everyone to believe Ken B actually had the exact same design Bessler had. I think we all realize that has yet to be absolutely confirmed.

I'm not currently a builder myself because I retired from building several years ago after becoming totally burned out from doing it over the years and getting nowhere. Someone who actually read his book says that in it Ken says he has worsening health problems that prevent him from building anything at this time. But, he added that if he was to undertake a build, he would use the exact design given in his book as his guide. So Ken's obviously very confident that he has in fact found Bessler's exact design. He's also stated elsewhere that he thinks it would really be better if others make sims of the design he found and physical models of it because anything he built would just be dismissed as a hoax if he claimed it worked. I guess that there is a certain logic to that considering how many hoaxers there have been and still are in the free energy field and how everyone thinks everyone else is delusional in their approaches to pm.

I think as more and more frustrated Bessler pm wheel chasers get nowhere with the designs that they are pursuing, they will give more consideration to the Ken B wheel in the future and we will start to see others trying to make sims of it and also attempting builds. Big changes take time. It took Bessler a decade to achieve success and Ken only published his research as a book in early 2019, IIRC. So the design has only been out there for about three and a half years by now. How far did Bessler get after three and a half years? Actually nowhere. I think by 2029 we will finally know if the Ken B wheel or someone else's design is what Bessler used or not. At least I hope so.

In the meantime, I'd like to see some clue based designs from others along with working sims for them, but I am frustrated because there aren't any. John keeps talking about how he's going to publish everything, but that never seems to happen for one reason or another and he's now right back to his "I'll only publish AFTER I prove my design with a working build" routine again despite promising only a few blog ago to publish all before the end of THIS year whether he has a working wheel or not. I think many following this blog are starting to take John's promises and plans with a large pinch of salt.

All of the pm wheel chasers over on the BW forum only report their latest failed sims and builds in progress that never work or engage in occasional p*ssing contests to vent their frustrations. At least Ken B has given us a precise direction to head in. It may not be perfect, but imo it's better that just going off in dozens of random directions that never produce results and only burn out more people and make them more frustrated and angry.

Also I'm NOT a Ken B "disciple"...just calling it like I see it. I really don't care who finally solves the Bessler wheel mystery just so long as I can finally see it solved before my end comes.

22. The Ken wheel , i suppose thats the name for it , has been build and disproven already.
I think nobody who believes in it or even Ken will accept that.

Ken wont build it nor get it build by anyone else , because the credibility for his claims is on the line , so instead he will sit back and play his "you did it wrong" card instead , history is littered with people that make such claims and deliver no proof , and it would seem like he is one of them now too.

IMO , if the credibility of his claims is on the line , he has nothing to lose , since he has proven nothing .

23. You might not be anon 21.51, but you are anon 03.13. Which doesn't change much.
I haven't made a list, to verify this, but i do have the impression that the vast majority of comments praising Ken's wheel are made by anons. Or to put it another way, most of Ken's disciples want to keep their identity secret. Why is this? Or am i deceiving myself, because it isn't actually the case?
I wouldn't say that i am angry with anon 21.51. I just think that here, on John's blog, isn't really the place for it. A "Ken's wheel fan club" would be an excellent place for anons to perpetually repeat the same arguments, without ever actually building it, or even sharing a working simulation of it.
I think ken's wheel has some merit, and it is very likely that when we do finally have the answer, there will be some similarities to be found. This can also be said for many other wheels, by many other Bessler wheel seekers. This is because there aren't fifty million ways of moving weights, within a frame, rotating around an axle. The problem is that none of them, including Ken's in my opinion, have the "perpetual motion principal" that Bessler spoke of.
I too do not care who invents the thing, and i would also like the puzzle to be solved before your end comes. There are enough seekers who have died without the knowledge that they were correct to not believe that it is impossible.
Anon 10.21

24. @03.13. You are undoubted a “Ken B disciple” though you deny it. RH49 is right, and anyone who has read Ken’s book must see what a load of garbage it contains, with imaginary clues from which he built an imaginary device which deviates in so many ways from Bessler’s clues that to cherry pick a couple of his clues as proof, which are not clues applicable to one way wheels, is self-evidently more garbage. I’ll say no more at this point but don’t waster your money on his book unless you use it a doorstop!

And that raises another point. Ken B is identifiable by his extreme loquaciousness!
JC

25. RH64 People who think and believe in the same thing , for instance flat-earthers , wont gather around and keep their discussion where everyone agrees , because they have the need to express that they are right and others are wrong , they need to argue and win by virtue of argument , and not by fact and proof which is the way of science.

They have a need to defend their believes and credibility , but forget that they have non to begin with.

We all have believes , and there is nothing wrong with that nor healthy discussion , but when you want to state things as actual fact , you need proof , not science fiction.

At this point Ken's wheel is all science fiction.

26. I have read the ebook version of Ken B's book and found it most interesting. He points out many clues both in the DT portraits and elsewhere which I had never noticed or seen discussed by anybody else before. I consider it an important addition to the Bessler literature and recommend it to others who are looking for new information about Bessler's wheels.

As for the design Ken B found provided by the DT clues, it's hard to just dismiss it as "science fiction". I believe it's real and hope it will one day be proven so. Making a working wheel based on it would certainly prove that, imo.

I'm also impressed at how people seem to be warming up to John's "five weight theory" on this unusually long blog comment page. I'm sure that's making him happy. As a result, however, there is now a major schism that has formed in the "church" of the Besslerites. There are the Ken B fans or "disciples" most of whom sound like they have actually read his book and accepted its conclusions and now a growing number John's fans who are willing to acknowledge that Bessler's earlier and smaller than 12 feet diameter wheels could have used only five weights. This is a surprising change I wasn't expecting.

I have an idea which I believe might be able to heal this schism.

All John has to do is take the Ken B wheel and make a version of it using only five of its Y shape levers! Ken B already claims to have a working sim for his design, so that would seem to increase the chance that John would also get a working sim with a five lever version of it. However, with the reduction in the number of levers to only five, most likely that Y shape of the lever will have to be changed somewhat. Those making the sims for John can work out the details of that for him.

If John's five lever wheel works, then it won't matter that it only makes five bumping sounds per turn because we don't have any evidence that Bessler's earlier wheels didn't do that.

There...schism healed!

Also, since John's version will only have five levers instead of eight, that will make it easier to make actual working models of it. That would then make it more likely that working models would be made of John's version before the are made of Ken B's version.

27. Oh my god, there's another one.

28. Anon 14:15's proposal sounds like a crazy idea at first glance, but maybe it's not.

If JC cannot get a working sim or build for any five lever wheel design he comes up with, then he may eventually be forced to try it. Better to share a gold medal with Ken B (assuming his design is proven to work), then to have to settle for a silver medal for just having hired others to make some English translations of B's books and then self published them although, admittedly, that was expensive for him to do. Imo, anyone interested in Bessler should be reading all of them.

Also, hopefully, no other prior English translations of B's books will surface that were made say in the 19th century that we never knew about. If that happens it would diminish the importance of JC's contribution and he might then only get a bronze medal! Still something to be proud of, but it's not gold. Gold is best.

I know of course that neither will be getting actual medals. I'm only using the medal metaphors to indicate how history will most likely remember them. Come to think of it though, if they shared a Nobel Prize, then they would get actual gold medals!

16. Most likely nobody has understood what the Connectedness Principle actually is!

1. Thats likely true , But Bessler also said he had a principle for perpetual motion , and that is the one we need , he said without it no mobile can be perpetual and anyone who is looking for a different one is fooling himself.

2. His connectedness principle was a small mechanical linkage principle. His Perpetual Motion Principle was unique and quite a different thing.

3. He said one side is full the other is empty , one side is light the other is heavy , and i am yet to see such a design.

4. @anon10:29
I don't think you will ever see such a design if you expect all of the weights to be in one half of the wheel and none of them to be in the other half. That's impossible. There was also probably the same number of weights in both halfs of the wheel like four weights in each half.

I think Bessler was actually describing the location of the CoM of the weights inside of the wheel. With the weights on the going down side closer to the rim than the weights on the going up side as the wheel turned, the CoM would always stay on the going down side. If you think of the CoM as an invisible point in space that was equal to all of the weights, then in a way its location on the going down side makes one side full and heavy and the other side that does not have the CoM located in it empty and light. Anyway that's the way I think of it.

5. @anon10:29
I don't think you will ever see such a design if you expect all of the weights to be in one half of the wheel and none of them in the other half. That's impossible. There was also probably the same number of weights in both halfs of the wheel like four weights in each half.

I think Bessler was actually describing the location of the CoM of the weights inside of the wheel. With the weights on the going down side closer to the rim than the weights on the going up side as the wheel turned, the CoM would always stay on the going down side. If you think of the CoM as an invisible point in space that was equal to all of the weights, then in a way its location on the going down side makes one side full and heavy and the other side that does not have the CoM located in it empty and light. Anyway that's the way I think of it.

17. Would anybody be interested in a VR platform like big screen to get together and orchestrate the best way to disseminate the information of the design to the public this platform would enable discussions and the ability to post on a big screen in front of everyone and explain your Concepts and ideas if you do not have VR you can still participate on the PC in a virtual reality environment also this platform allows for security password entry just a thought to see how many would be interested

1. ........(crickets).......

18. If you are a supporter of KB's string, spring, and Y levers solution to B's. Perpetual Motion Principle and a Bessler bona fide runner then you and he have been and are ignorant of the obvious. How is KB's mechanical structures and applications "solution" worked into MT's 44 and 48 ball transfer designs to allow them to become runners ? If you can't answer that then it is clearly not B's. mechanical solution to a runner, or even close.

1. Various versions of "ball transfer designs" like MT 44 and 48 have been made over the years that show they do not work. The problem is that in all of them the amount of weight rising per second is always equal to amount of weight falling per second so that all of the gravitational potential energy lost by the falling weights must be completely used to lift the rising weights and increase their gravitational potential energy. That doesn't leave any leftover lost gravitational potential energy from the falling weights to power outside machines. If you actually constructed either MT 44 or 48 (you can also include MT 45, 46, 47 and 49 with them!) and loaded the metal balls into it, you would find out that it just remained stationary at all times.

However, assuming that the Ken B wheel actually works, then it could be connected to any of them to make it run. But, why bother doing that when you could just use the Ken B wheel by itself to power outside machines? Imo, anybody trying to build either MT 44 or 48 (including MT 45, 46, 47, and 49) is just wasting his time.

2. Your explanation for why MT's 44 & 48 etc don't & can't work is the same explanation for all OOB wheels not working. You did forget to account for frictional energy losses depletion which is technically why they can't work and are Sub-OU. And KB's Sub-OU + Sub-OU does not add to OU.

3. I think anon 01:51 was providing an ideal case to make his explanation as simple as possible to understand. In an ideal case there is no bear friction or air resistance present. In the real world where these are always present, the outside power source, assumed to be Ken B's wheel here, would first have to provide enough power to overcome the bearing frictions to make it possible for mt44 or mt48 to begin to be able to move. It would then have to provide extra power to overcome air resistance and accelerate the parts (metal balls and wheels) of the machine up to a certain speed. The faster its parts are to move, the more air resistance they will have acting on them and the more power the outside source will have to provide.

As far as Ken B's wheel is concerned, he claims that the power it generates actually comes from mass of its weights as they move around the wheel. He has an explanation for how this removal of mass energy takes place based on a slight difference in the average drop and rise speeds of the weights on both side of a turning wheel. He says that all of B's wheels were not really producing any "free" energy. Since all of B's wheels contained only a limited amount of lead mass, they could only put out a limited amount of energy over time. At some distance time in the future, assuming a B wheel was still running because none of its parts had failed, it would eventually come to a stop. So, Ken B does not believe B's wheels were actually perpetual as being able to run forever. He's the only guy I've ever make this claim. I agree with his explanation at least until I see a better one. I haven't read his book yet but I plan to in the future.

4. Less 1 that can compete , that's a win win.

19. "@anon17:22
What you say is certainly true for a single lever with a spring attached to it. But, the situation becomes different inside of a wheel where there are several interconnected weighted levers and each lever has its own suspension spring. Take another look at that Ken B video someone gave a link to above. The counter balancing between its eight levers remains stable as the wheel rotates even though the levers between 6:00 and about 3:00 are constantly swinging around their individual pivots. However, despite all of that motion, the orientations of the eight levers is exactly repeated after every 45 degrees of CW rotation. That lever swinging action is automatic and takes no rotational kinetic energy from the wheel itself. As a result, the COG of the eight weights always stays slightly to the right of the axle center and below it so it can provide torque to the wheel. I think it's really an amazing design he's found and I've never seen anything like it elsewhere. I can't say for certain if it's exactly Bessler's design, but I would bet that, if it is not, then it's probably very close to what Bessler must have used."

You disregard the fact that swinging back up requires more force , the force of the spring plus the force of the weight plus the leverage ratio has to now overcome that at a distance plus friction plus air resistance , plus the cords weight plus the tension on the cords at each angle changes ,plus torque for each lever angle will be different which determines how much force they "have" at that angle , plus spring energy losses , it would require in total more energy : force over distance to move the lever and its spring , all from another lever plus a spring which is already unable to do work because it is counter balanced , now add in centrifugal forces acting on the weights plus gravity .

Without the math of the forces and energy involved and the complete lack of that proof because it is only an animation and not a real thing , you can only come to the conclusion that with the known laws being the only thing that is given as fact and not lacking in proof and being real , nothing in that video represents anything remotely "real" for analysts , it is fictional .

It has been build by someone already and disproved , reality determines what is real , animations do not determine what is real.

1. "It has been build by someone already and disproved , reality determines what is real , animations do not determine what is real."

As I understand it, that Ken B wheel video is not an animation. It is a simulation that was made using an wm2d. Simulations must obey the laws of mechanics while animations don't have to.

There was an attempt to build Ken's version of Bessler's 3 foot diameter Gera prototype wheel by one newbie who posted on the bw forum only twice before he disappeared. In his first post there he asked questions about Ken B's book and then a week later he posted again claiming he had finished reading Ken's book (about 800 pages!) and had completed a physical model of the wheel described in Ken's book!

I've talked to several who have actually read the entire text of Ken's book and their first reading took them several weeks at a minimum. Someone planning on doing building will probably have to reread the chapters giving building instructions several times. In the book Ken says that it could take someone up to a month to complete the 3 foot diameter Gera prototype wheel reproduction that he describes and that's probably after he has thoroughly studied those chapters and gathered all of the materials and tools he will need.

In his second post on the bw forum that poster showed some photos of the version of Ken B's wheel he made. It looked like it had been quickly put together using parts from other failed wheels that he had previously made. He did not provide the values of any of its parts such as the mass of its weights or the k values of its springs. There is no assurance that he actually followed Ken B's instructions precisely when he build it. Still, he claimed that it was self-starting from certain starting orientations, but not others.

I think most have dismissed the partial failure of his build as due to unremoved imbalances of its parts that impaired its operation. I have been told that in his book Ken B warns those wishing to build that reproduction of Bessler's original 3 foot diameter prototype wheel that they must follow his instructions as closely as possible so that the final model's parts will be as precisely balanced as possible. Most likely that poster on the bw forum did not do that and as a result he could not get his wheel to rotate continuously.

Someone who read Ken's book and posted on this blog years ago said that the prototype wheel's center of gravity is located only 1/16th of an inch away horizontally from the center of its axle and the entire wheel weighs less than ten pounds! That means its torque is very low and if the wheel is not very carefully balanced in all of its eight orientations, then it will not have steady torque. Ken provides instructions on how to properly balance the model wheel as it is being constructed. He warns readers that those instructions must be followed as closely as possible.

Even Bessler wrote that after he finished a wheel, it took him several days of extra work to make various adjustments to it so it could run, but he did not say exactly what those adjustments were. If the 3 foot diameter Gera prototype wheel's center of gravity was only 1/16th of an inch away from the center of its axle, that probably means that in a 12 foot diameter wheel it was only 1/4 of an inch away! I think anyone attempting a 12 foot diameter wheel had better be a very skilled and well equipped craftsman. It's really best to start small and then, if one is successful, gradually increase the diameters of future wheels he attempts to construct.

2. I thought that it had been decided unanimously that the reason the attempt at Ken's wheel was a failure, had nothing to do with physics. With there being no physical reason it shouldn't work, because it is an amazingly wonderful design that cannot fail, the problem was related to the colour scheme of the components. No way could a wheel run with such uncoordinated colours. There was also the question of him finishing it on a Tuesday, and we all know too well that gravity wheels finished on a Tuesday are destined to fail. Hopefully someone will actually do everything right, just as Ken describes in his wonderful book, so we can all admire it's beauty.

3. Anon all i can conclude from what you wrote is that someone fed Ken his own medicine , Ken would have to proof his own wheel a real runner to disproof the person who already went through the work and expense to build it .

ATM the only Ken wheel that existed in this realm we call reality ,that was build and not a simulation , was not a runner unlike what Ken claimed .

4. Exactly right!

5. The reality is that Ken did not build his wheel. I think his only goal was to serve as an information provider and provide others with as much information as they would need to finally reproduce Bessler's wheels. Will the design Ken says is described by dozens of previously unknown clues in the DT portraits actually work when built?

I don't know. What I do know is that he said he had to make several thousand sims before he finally be found that design. I can't believe that anyone who has the skills to do something like that wouldn't be able to recognize whether or not a sim was actually working and not just due to a glitch. He says he has working sims showing the design works. I have no reason not to believe him so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

In the future as the details of the design spread out among more and more Bessler enthusiasts I'm sure we will see others making sims of the design. If the majority of them are runners then I'm also sure we will then see more and more builders trying to make actual physical wheels based on it because if the design works in sim form, then it should work in real physical form. No guarantee of that, however.

It's nice to know that we MAY finally have Bessler's actual pm wheel design. Three hundreds years was long time to have to wait for it.

20. He said he had ONE sim that worked, though he may have copied it multiple times without any changes to other folders. His sim runner (according to him) shown on YouTube had a very obvious physical and practical fault (noob mistake). One Y lever passed right through its rim stop when it should have collided with it and transferred a portion of its Kinetic Energy and Momentum to the rim stop. He did not have collisions turned on for these objects otherwise they would have collided like the rest of the levers and stops in the sim. The sim turned at a constant rpm even when the Y lever passed through the stop and beyond. IF the sim was demonstrating a CoG displaced as he said then the sim should have been accelerating and not been at a constant rpm. It looked like a hidden motor in the background was turning it at constant speed. He won't say whether his sim has any frictions turned on such as in pivots, or air resistance, which is an approximation of minimum load conditions similar to an actual build condition. He does not share his sim with anybody else to test the validity of his claims or have an opportunity to improve its power output beyond the meagre he claims. You are expected to build your own from his specifications and dimensions. At the same time he says he only got this one sim to be a runner but you can get one to work if you build it too. His wheel was physically built by careful and experienced builder and member whatzonstrat based on his book details. It did not work. He did not engage with the builder to sort out any teething problems and assist the debriefing process in any way other than to say it must not have accurately followed his specifications and dimensions.

No experienced sim user is prepared to go down the Ken B rabbit hole with him.

21. Anon 15:05

E=MC2 , Mass–energy equivalence.

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the relationship between mass and energy in a system's rest frame.

The rest frame of compound objects (such as a fluid, or a solid made of many vibrating atoms) is taken to be the frame of reference in which the average momentum of the particles which make up the substance is zero (the particles may individually have momentum, but collectively have no net momentum).

the formula m = E/c2 indicates how much mass is lost when energy is removed. In the same way, when any energy is added to an isolated system, the increase in the mass is equal to the added energy divided by c2.

When potential energy increases in a spring the mass slightly increases , but when potential energy is removed the mass slightly decreases , and the amount of mass increase and decrease is accounted for with the equivalent energy increase and decrease.

As potential energy and energy increases in a system , the mass increases equivalently to the energy , this is added mass to the already existing mass , as the potential energy and energy decreases from the system the mass decreases by the equivalent energy decrease :

Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass, as shown when the equation is rearranged:
A spinning ball has greater mass than when it is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball.

For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its rotation, than it would be with no rotation. The rotational energy of the Earth is greater than 1024 Joules, which is over 107 kg.

summation :
The system does not increase in energy by a reduction of mass-energy the system increases in energy by an increase of mass-energy , the system does not increase in mass by a reduction in mass-energy the system increases in mass by an increase in mass-energy.

When weight rise and fall the same distance , they would lose and gain the same amount of potential energy , so the same amount of mass-energy equivalence is gained in ascending as it does when it descends.
That is an equal potential energy increase and decrease , which is an equal mass-energy equivalent.
you need to lift more mass or higher than under unity to increase the potential energy.

The system must have constant mass-energy increase more than it has at rest frame , to be able to draw from it a constant mass-energy reduction equivalent to the increase above the rest frame measured mass-energy.

When the energy is drawn from that system , it must of result , decrease in its total mass-energy equivalent to the energy drawn from that system , its total KE must drop.

You can only draw from that system the mass-energy equivalent of the amount it has over unity and not below the amount : you cannot decrease the weights mass-energy below the equivalent they have at rest unless you have some sort of fission .

To proof that you have a mass-energy increase above unity , you must proof to have KE gain above unity.
To proof that you have a mass-energy increase by raising and dropping weight you must prove you have a gain in GPE.

22. Wow! We haven't seen a 100 comment blog here in a long time and this one has some of the best comments in it I've ever read. Guess people had a lot to say and doing that took their minds of our current climate change heat wave. Seems like old times again. I remember a few years ago we hit almost 200 comments! Those were the days.