On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had succeeded in designing and building a perpetual motion machine. For more than fourteen years he exhibited his machine and allowed people to thoroughly examine the outside of it, but it’s internal workings were kept hidden. This was because the inventor feared that his design would be copied and someone else might obtain credit for all his years of hard work looking for the solution. He followed the advice from the famous scientist, Gottfried Leibniz, who was able to examine the device, and recommended a number of demonstrations and tests designed to prove the validity of his machine without giving away the secret of its design.
Karl the Landgrave of Hesse permitted Bessler to live, work and exhibit his machine at the prince's castle of Weissenstein. Karl was a man of unimpeachable reputation and he insisted on being allowed to verify the inventor's claims before he allowed Bessler to take up residence. This the inventor reluctantly agreed to and once he had examined the machine to his own satisfaction Karl authorised the publication of his approval of the machine. For several years Bessler was visited by numerous people of varying status, scientists, ministers and royalty. Several official examinations were carried out and each time the examiners concluded that the inventor's claims were genuine.
Over a number of years Karl aged and it was decided that after so long it was time the inventor left the castle and he was granted accommodation in the nearby town of Karlshafen. Despite the strong circumstantial evidence that his machine was genuine, Bessler failed to secure a sale and after more than thirty years he died in poverty. His death came after he fell from a windmill he had been commissioned to build. The windmill was an interesting design using a vertical axle which allowed it to benefit from winds from any directions.
He had asked for a huge sum of money for the secret of his perpetual motion machine, £20,000 which was an amount thought only affordable by kings and princes, and although many were interested, none were prepared to agree to the terms of the deal. Bessler required that he be given the money before the buyer was allowed to view the internal workings of the machine. But those who sought to purchase the wheel, for that was the form the machine took, insisted that they see the secret mechanism before they parted with the money. Bessler feared that once the design was known the buyers could simply walk away knowing how to build his machine and he would get nothing for his trouble.
I became curious about the legend of Bessler’s Wheel, while still in my teens, and have spent most of my life researching the life of Johann Bessler (I’m now 77). I obtained copies of all his books and had them translated into English and self-published them, in the hope that either myself or someone else might solve the secret and present it to the world in this time of pollution, global warming and increasingly limited energy resources.
Not long after I was able to read the English translations of his books, I became convinced that Bessler had embedded a number of clues in his books. These took the form of hints in the text, but also in a number of drawings he published and I found suggestions by the author that studying his books would reveal more information about his wheel.
For some ideas about Bessler’s code why not visit my web sites at
Take a look at my work on his “Declaration of Faith” at
Also please view my video at
It gives a brief account both the legend and some more detail about some of the codes.
The problem of obtaining a fair reward for all his hard work was anticipated by Bessler and he took extraordinary measures to ensure that his secret was safe, but he encoded all the information needed to reconstruct the machine in a small number of books that he published. He implied that he was prepared to die without selling the secret and that he believed that posthumous acknowledgement was preferable to being robbed of his secret while he yet lived.
It has recently become clear that Bessler had a huge knowledge of the history of codes and adopted several completely different ones to disguise information within his publications. I have made considerable advances in deciphering his codes and I am confident that I have the complete design.
Johann Bessler published three books, and digital copies of these with English translations may be obtained from the links to the right of this blog. In addition there is a copy of his unpublished document containing some 141 drawings - and my own account of Bessler’s life is also available from the links. It is called "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"
Bessler's three published books are entitled "Grundlicher Bericht", "Apologia Poetica” and "Das Triumphirende...". I have called Bessler's collection of 141 drawings “Maschinen Tractate”, but it was originally found in the form of a number of loosely collected drawings of perpetual motion designs. Many of these have handwritten notes attached and I have published the best English translation of them that I was able to get. Bessler never published these drawings but clearly intended to use them in his planned school for apprentices.
You can order copies of the books from my website at
Printed books direct from the printer can be obtained from here
Or from the top of the right side panel under the heading ‘Bessler’s Books’.
There are also links lower down on the right side panel.
These books contain the most important information available if you seek to find the solution to Bessler’s wheel.
JC
Most if not all of us here are addicted to clues, symbols, patterns (5's, 7's, yin-yangs, swastikas, johann's, etc.). Another possible one:
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/yN3HLZ84/besslerwupd9.jpg
Ingenious, but I’m not convinced but show me how it works.
DeleteJC
Wow! That's amazing mryy. Looks like you are about to finally solve the Bessler pm wheel mystery! It's about time someone did. Thanks for sharing!
DeleteOf course, John will immediately have to dismiss it as delusional because it doesn't have five mechanisms in it like he's convinced himself it should have.
"...John will immediately have to dismiss it as delusional..."
DeleteI wonder if John ever considers that he might be delusional with all of those number 5's and pentagons that he sees everywhere?
JC, ok I'll take the bait. :) It's a bi-directional wheel with 8 hoisting/launching (yellow) weights and 2 hoisted/launched (red) weights. Red to yellow mass ratio is about 1:4. To spin in one direction push start in the *opposite* direction until the reds are appoximately at the 1:30 and 3:30 (for a cw wheel spin) or at the 8:30 and 10:30 (for a ccw spin). One red weight will hop/roll over to an adjacent lever during the push. Release and let gravity and the self-triggering, spring-loaded levers take care of the rest (not drawn to accuracy):
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/kGdsVrt2/besslerwupd10.jpg
Let's do a cw spin. I marked one red weight with a black dot to help viewer follow the process (not drawn to accuracy):
https://i.postimg.cc/fyjKmHxB/besslerwupd11.jpg
Anon 22:01, muchas gracias but darn it! I forgot to use 5 sets of paired levers !! Wait a sec ... there's 8 individual ones. So that's 5+3. Does that count? LOL
@mryy
DeleteI know the red weights are supposed to fly up to a higher lever on the descending side, but it looks like to do that you then have the yellow weights suddenly detaching from their levers and rolling around for a while on that blue part on the ascending side before they somehow roll around and then reattach to their levers again (I think). Your two way wheel will have eight yellow launcher weights and two red flying weights in it for a total of ten weights.
Assuming that a yellow weight is four times as heavy as a red weight, I think it could actually be possible that your yellow weight, after it drops and cocks its lever, might allow that lever, when it is suddenly released by the yellow weight detaching from its end, to actually hurl the red weight all the way up to the wheel's 3 o'clock position just so long as the vertical distance that red weight flies through does not exceed (and preferably is less than) four times the vertical distance that the yellow weight drops through as it cocks its lever. And, of course, you'd have to design the levers so that the trajectory of the red weight carries it away from the axle and toward the wheel's 3 o'clock location. Yes, it might be possible with the right design.
Maybe your design has now gotten to the point where we can officially call it "Mister Ying Yang's Untethered Flying Weight Wheel"? The next step is to see if anyone can make a working sim from it. If they can, then it's time to build!
PM Dreamer
Btw. Nice drawings. What drawing program are you using for them? Others here might want to use it if and when they finally decide to show us something. So far only you and that JEEB1717 guy last year have done that (he left after he was made to feel unwelcome here). But a simple to use drawing program along with being able to upload drawings anonymously to postimages.org might help encourage others to show something here.
PM Dreamer, thanks for the feedback. Appreciate your description of the process so others may understand. I am using Paint.net. It's freeware and a souped-up version of the very rudimentary MS Paint. It has a layer feature to make your work lots more efficient and convenient. Overall a decent software. I would hit ctrl+d to reset if you ever run into a problem during drawing -- seems to help me in many instances.
DeleteThe number of yellow weights at any moment during rotation are the same on either the descending or ascending side. They shouldn't really influence the wheel's movement even if a couple of them are rolling around in their respective "compartments". What really influence rotation are the red weights always on the descending side keeping the CoG there. I suspect this four-lever set wheel design spins very slowly. Bessler said the same:
"I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster." AP 340 Collins
I've never used sims and am not familiar with them in any way. Can sims model an object in free flight? If not do the Bessler way and build one. A smart approach I think is initially to make prototypes of the lever itself. Test different springs and weights and plot the results. Hopefully one can arrive at some modeling equation(s) of various lever designs. Afterward build out the wheel.
I believe one can do away with an inside axle if one builds a wheel with two very sturdy, framed sides (central hub, spokes and rim) and connect these sides to each other with perpendicular rods along the rims. Finally attach strong outer axles to the hubs of both sides. Inside axle or not, a properly tweaked lever should launch the red weights without a problem.
"Mister Ying Yang's Untethered Flying Weight Wheel". Hmm. How about "??TheOne??" -- a lot shorter, suggestive of the Bessler logo center, rolls off the ramp easily, and instills undue confidence. Karl said something along the line that the internals of the wheel was simple to understand and build. I am feeling similarly about ??TheOne?? .
P.S. Correction to previous comment:
"...until the reds are appoximately at the 12:30 and 3:30 (for a cw wheel spin) or at the 8:30 and 11:30 (for a ccw spin)..."
It's an interesting design although I think most here would be uncomfortable with a rotating drum having weights constantly being kicked back up on its descending side while other weights roll around on the ascending side. You are basing a lot on those two words "speedy flight" in Bessler's description of the weights in his wheels. Don't forget that is only one person's English translation of the 18th century German for those words. Someone else might translate them as "rapid movement" which would suggest that the weights could just be tethered at all times rather than airborne at any time.
DeleteBut, whether it's Bessler's wheel or not is probably not that important. What counts is whether or not it works after being tweaked enough. If this design hangs around for a while here or is presented over on the besslerwheel.com forum, someone will eventually sim it. All they need to do is just sim two levers on the descending side and see if that red weight can be shot back up to land on a trailing lever when it reaches 3 o'clock. If that is possible, a wheel with four levers should be easy to make afterwards to see if one can get continuous rotation out of it.
I've used MS Paint in the past and, although easy to use, it's very limited. I will download that Paint.net program you mentioned and give it a try. Thanks for that info. I favor the "Untethered Flying Weight Wheel" name because it describes the design's action perfectly. Come up with a design that has five levers in it and John will love it!
I did manage to download a free copy of Paint.NET from here:
Deletehttps://www.dotpdn.com/downloads/pdn.html
But, I couldn't install it on my old laptop's Windows 7.0 operating system for some technical reason. Maybe others will have better luck if they're using Windows 10? I scanned the download and found no viruses or malware in it.
However I read that Paint.NET is a bit complicated to use so I looked around and found another free drawing program that was specifically designed to replace MS Paint an expand on its abilities and should be easier to use. It's called "EZ Paint!" and you can download it from this webpage:
http://ezpaintsoftware.com/
Follow the instructions to install it after you download it. I scanned the downloaded zip file and it contained no viruses or malware. It's installation went smoothly with Windows 7.0.
I too have Windows 7.0 and it worked for me. Try here:
Deletehttps://download.cnet.com/Paint-NET/3000-2192_4-10338146.html
It's an older version.
https://i.postimg.cc/fyRx3H3x/besslerupd14.jpg
DeleteHere's an improved lever system for a bi-directional wheel. Figure 1. This should guide all the weights to their proper places when the wheel changes spin direction. I think bi-directional wheels will fall out of favor once working models are manufactured, as they don't have the power potential of uni-directional ones (assuming this proposed design is correct). As you know Bessler built them to disprove claims of fraud -- claims that his uni-directional employed one-way clock springs.
I decided to impose a circle over a lever with weights included. Figure 2. Looking a bit like a yin-yang? What could the ancients have known? Bessler did say the principle was deeply hidden. Hmm. Yet another clue...
Life imitates Art:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcPsjBpXZCg
Thanks, mryy. I didn't like how tiny the icons were on EZ Paint so I dumped that program. I then downloaded and installed Paint.NET from the link you gave using Windows 7.0 and everything went smoothly. But, it is more complicated than MS Paint and I'm going to have to do some practicing with it before I get the hang of it.
DeleteI struggled with Paint.NET for an hour and got nowhere. Too damn complicated, imo. Back to good old and MUCH easier to use MS Paint for me!
DeleteYou don't need to use some fancy drawing program. Just make a hand sketch of your wheel and use some colored marker pens to do it on a sheet of white paper. Use pens with wide tips so the lines aren't too fine. Label different parts with letters like Bessler did in MT. Take a close up photograph the drawing with your cell phone camera and email its image file to yourself. Open the email in your inbox and drag the image file to your laptop's desktop. Give it a descriptive name. Then go to https://postimages.org and upload the image file to that website. Get the url for it they provide and put it into your comment that you post here. After the drawing is finished, the rest of it shouldn't take you anymore than maybe fifteen minutes to do.
DeleteFinally, sit back and watch as some here tell you it will never work because it violates this or that law of mechanics. Others will also tell you it doesn't agree with this or that clue in Bessler's books and thus it cannot possibly be Bessler's design. A few blogs later no one will be talking about it anymore. They will then be aiming their criticisms and opinions at someone else who decided to reveal something.
It would be nice if we could put drawings right into our comments here instead of having to just give a link to them on some outside host. Is it possible to put images into the comments here?
Deleteanon 21:51, there's some learning curve when using Paint.NET (or any new software for that matter). Just stick to it. You will get there!
DeleteTips:
1. When you first open paint.NET there is a white canvas. That is your Background layer. I say leave it alone. If you draw images on the Background and erase them, you get this checkerboard background which I find really annoying. Go to the lower right box called "Layers" and click on the icon with the + sign to add a new layer over the Background. You will be drawing images on these new layers, and the images of different layers superimpose over one another. *Think of traditional translucent vellum layer sheets that drafters use.* That is the concept behind the layer feature. Check or uncheck next to a layer to make it appear or disappear. You can keep adding as many layers as you like and re-arranging them in top-to-bottom order. You can re-name them too. It's all in the icons at the bottom of the Layers box.
2. Make sure you are doing your work on the right layer. How do you know this? The active layer is highlighted in dark blue! I can't tell the times I worked on the wrong layer.
3. The History box on the upper right is used to undo mistakes step by step. Click on the ccw arrow at the bottom.
4. If you run into a problem when drawing/editing images try ctrl+d to reset. Many times it has to do with a selection not being finished.
5. If you want to export the image you see before you on the screen as a .jpg file or similar, click "Save As" under the File menu option on top and select the preferred file type under "save as type". Give it a name and click 'ok' and 'flatten' in the successive popup boxes.
6. Always save your work periodically.
6. Google for online help if you run to problems.
@ anon 14:31 Sorry, but the only way I can show images is within each blog. I’ve tried many times in the past to even put an image in a comment but it doesn’t seem possible even for me. I wrote a few ideas but then deleted them because it doesn’t get over the hassle of having to enter them in a comment. Any suggestions?
DeleteJC
https://i.postimg.cc/3JByKWPG/besslerupd15.jpg
DeleteThis is another modification of the lever system for the proposed bi-drectional wheel, the ??theOne$$ as I call it. There's a half circle at the bottom of the blue guide. When the wheel changes direction the half circle temporarily holds the launching weight that dropped off from a soon-to-be inactive lever. The weight then eventually returns to its rails as the wheel rotates in the new direction. Ok I'm done with the bi-wheel, not that I think it even has a future compared to the uni-wheel.
There's much interest in numerology here. It's been said that the number 5 seems to have taken Johann Bessler's peculiar attention. I traced the outline of the above lever system and got what appears to be a 5 !! Another possible clue of the lever's construction? Hmm.
Look, I know some may be skeptical of my proposed wheel ??theOne$$ but I really believe we're heading in the right direction. Suppose the design turns out to be -- perish the thought - a dud. We can always change its name to ??nottheOne$$ or the ??theOnethatwasnt$$ . Simple! And the naysayers will be satisfied.
Nice "perpetuo stabilem" wheel you got there PMD. Lol!
Delete@anon 00:33
DeleteI do happen to have an idea for a wheel design that I'm convinced must work. It is an overbalanced type wheel, but I definitely don't think it's what Bessler used because it would be almost silent as it ran. It is based on some of the designs he showed at the end of MT. It can use either rolling lead balls, water, or liquid mercury for maximum torque and should be able to turn rapidly.
I'm going to have to think over whether or not to reveal it here. If I do, I'll first have to make up a quick sketch of it and upload it to postimages.org. Maybe I'll just save it for a time when things get really slow around here which happens occasionally.
PM Dreamer
"I do happen to have an idea for a wheel design that I'm convinced must work. It is an overbalanced type wheel"
DeleteI've read this sentence a good hundred times, I myself thought I came up with it several times.
It's pretty unlikely to be effective, but let's face it lol.
Propose us your idea and we'll tell you if it has some chances to succeed. Already with mercury lol, the candidates to the construction will be very rare or even non-existent, you see you don't fear much :)
T H X 4.
@THX4
DeleteI did make a rough sketch of the design which I'm probably going to call the "Spiral Tube Wheel" for want of a better name, but I'd rather make a much neater MS Paint drawing of it before revealing the design here. It basically consists of a special arrangement of several spiral tubes which have the lead balls or water or mercury moving through them in such a way that the wheel will always be out of balance. The tubes are sealed and the weights remain in them at all times. I haven't seen anything like it anywhere else although Bessler did show a small part of it in some of his MT drawings. What he showed, however, cannot work. I think the design I have will work. I must emphasize that I do not think this is the design Bessler used in his wheels, but if he'd known about it, I think that he probably would have tried building it!
As far as building it goes, I'm not really into building anymore. But, I think there may be enough interest in the design to motivate someone else to at least try simulating it. If that works, then I'm sure there will be a lot of people tripping over themselves to actually build it. I think it could be easily built using flexible plastic tubing to contain the rolling lead balls or water or mercury.
I don't like using mercury because of its toxicity, but its high density would allow it to produce the maximum torque in this design and make it completely silent in operation. The mercury will be sealed into the tubing so that would completely contain it and if flexible plastic tubing is used, that will reduce the possibility of the tubing cracking and releasing the mercury.
PM Dreamer
@PMD
DeleteI'm also curious about that spiral tube design you described. Bessler said in the MT notes that nothing could be achieved by using ball weights, but it sounds like you may have found a way to make it work. I also thought about using mercury in one of my wheels, but it's expensive and if you spill it you have to clean up every little drop and air out your entire house. Too dangerous to use for the average pm wheel builder imo.
I didn't want to take the attention off of mryy's interesting flying weight design in this blog. But, since there seems to be some interest in my spiral tube design, I'll see if I can complete a quick MS Paint drawing of it and post a link to it here tomorrow to satisfy the curious. I can't guarantee that I'll have it done and ready by tomorrow, but I'll give it a try. I guess it would be hypocritical of me to be encouraging others here to reveal their designs if I was unwilling to do so myself.
DeletePM Dreamer
Okay everyone. I promised yesterday that I would try to make an MS Paint sketch of my "Spiral Tube Wheel" and get it posted today, so here it is:
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/T1T1tpcJ/Spiral-Tube-Wheel.jpg
It was a little more difficult to draw than I thought it would be especially when it came time to put in those four spiral tubes.
How it works should be obvious. As each spiral tube approaches 12 o'clock in this CW turning wheel, its outermost lead ball weight will fall out of it and then roll down the straight tube to the spiral tube approaching 9 o'clock. There the ball weight will enter a hole in the center of the back side of the spiral tube and land on the innermost part of it.
It takes a full rotation of the wheel before a ball weight rolls all the way around its spiral tube and fully descends from its inner to outer parts and then finally drops out of the spiral tube as it approaches 12 o'clock. This action is repeated four times per wheel rotation by the four spiral tubes and, hopefully, will result in the wheel always being overbalanced with the center of gravity of the thirteen ball weights being located approximately where the blue dot is placed.
It's important that the ball weight that is released as a spiral tube approaches 12 o'clock makes it over to the following spiral tube and enters it before the spiral tube leaving the 12 o'clock location has reached the wheel's 1:30 position. That's because at that location the straight tube connecting the two spiral tubes is horizontal and the ball weight won't be able to roll down it. So, there is a speed limit to this wheel that will be determined by gravity. I'm not exactly sure what would happen if the wheel exceeds that speed limit.
I think this design would work better if a liquid like water or mercury was used instead of rolling lead ball weights.
PM Dreamer
Btw. I set this up so the image file will disappear after 30 days. Anyone interested in working with the design should download and save a copy of it as soon as possible.
@PMD
DeleteWow...if your wheel has been Bessler ghost approved, then it's got to work! Lol!
It's fine to submit your design here. At least we know it's not ??theOne$$ lol. All ideas and feedback encouraged and welcomed as far as I am concerned. Thanks for contributing PM Dreamer.
ReplyDeletePM Dreamer It is a very creative design but it's value lies in what it will teach you. You're geometry appears on first look to be dependent on the normal force but yet when it spins you're going to have to deal with centripetal force. The design has to compensate for that timing I do not wish to discourage you because it could very well lead you to the understanding that works. This design is not anything like the one Bessler discovered you have to consider all the Directions of force. Bessler's design utilize tension that directed movement yours relies on the normal force and friction. If you were to sim the design it would give you better insight into what I'm trying to convey to you or you can do some calculations on rotational motion that might save you some time. Chalk it up to experience or back to the chalkboard don't be discouraged and treat yourself to some chocolate one thing about experience whether something works or doesn't The Experience itself has value!
ReplyDeleteYou definitely have a unique design there, PMD. I agree with you that it's not what Bessler used. I like the way one of the four lead ball weights automatically drops out of a spiral tube every time it approaches the 12:00 location.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to tell just by looking at it exactly what would happen if it was built. The COG of the 13 ball weights is definitely on the right side of the axle and creates a CW torque. Yet, once a spiral tube passes 12:00, you will have 7 ball weights left of the axle and only 6 to the right of the axle which will create an opposing CCW torque. If the CW torque is greater, then it must work. But, I suspect that this is yet another design where the two torques will be equal and opposite to each other and no continuous motion can occur.
But, thanks for sharing it with us. Maybe it will give others some ideas on how to improve it or use its concept in their own designs.
jason
Maybe if he mounted two of his four spiral wheels on the same axle and side by side he could make it work? The wheels would be mounted 45 degrees out of alignment with each other so that during each rotation there would be eight spirals that released their outer ball weights as each one reached and passed 12:00. Maybe that would keep a cw torque going at all times?
DeleteIf Bessler had pulled ball weights out of his Merseburg wheel instead of cylinder ones, then I think this design or something like it might have been what he used.
The more I look at PMD's ingenious wheel design, the more I'm convinced that it would have to work. I can also prove that with some maths.
DeleteWhat happens as his wheel turns through 90 degrees? One ball weight drops out of the 12:00 spiral tube and rolls down to the center of the 9:00 spiral tube and once that spiral tube finally reaches 12:00, the NET change in the vertical location of that ball weight is then equal to the radius of one spiral tube which we can call R since it moved from the outside of one spiral tube at 12:00 to the center of another one also eventually located at 12:00. That means that the NET increase in the GPE of that one ball weight, which we can say has a mass of M, is equal to MgR where g is the acceleration due to Earth's gravity. The energy to increase its GPE has to come from the wheel to which the 9:00 spiral tube is fixed and that will result in the wheel decelerating.
BUT, what's happening to the other 12 ball weights during that 90 degrees of wheel rotation? If each one of those ball weights drops 1/3 of the radius of its spiral tube or -R/3, then the TOTAL change in the GPE of those other 12 ball weights is 12 x Mg(-R/3) which is equal to -4MgR. We have to put a negative sign in front of R here because those ball weights are all dropping in the Earth's gravity field instead of rising.
This means that for every quarter turn of PMD's spiral tube wheel, the NET change in the GPE of its 13 weights will be MgR + (-4MgR) = -3MgR. For a complete rotation of the wheel or 360 degrees it will be 4 x -3MgR or -12MgR since 90 degrees goes into 360 degrees 4 times.
PMD's wheel has to work and work well, imo. I agree that it is not Bessler's final working design, but if he had ever thought of it, this spiral tube wheel of might have been because I think it would put out more power than Bessler's wheels did. Maybe if it had been he could finally have sold a wheel? PMD's design is also nice because there's little to go wrong with it. No lever bearings inside a wheel's drum to lubricate and no ropes or springs to break. Maybe after running for a very long time, the inside surfaces of the tubes would get worn away by the friction of the lead ball weights rolling over them? Using water or mercury could also eliminate that problem. Using mercury will not only increase torque and power output compared to water, but a wheel using liquid mercury could probably be used for all of the winter because the freezing point of mercury is about -38 degrees Fahrenheit and not 32 degrees Fahrenheit like water which winter temperatures often go below. That means a businessman using this wheel would not have to worry about keeping the room it was located in heated during the winter months. That would save him the cost of heating fuel and would increase his profits. All businessmen would like that.
It's a unique concept but it won't work looking at the design and how many balls there are and how it moves where did the red ball fall from the outer edge of the Spiral not possible
DeleteThe wheel will be heavier towards the extra weight , it would have a tendency towards CCW and not CW until it stops.
DeleteNice to see that John could restore PMD's mysteriously missing comment again. I was also wondering why it suddenly disappeared.
Delete@anon 11:08
I'm feeling a lot more optimistic about his wheel after seeing your analysis, but I think you assumed an incorrect vertical drop distance for a ball weight during a 90 degree of rotation of the wheel.
It takes a full 360 degree rotation of his wheel for the innermost ball weight in the 12:00 spiral tube to drop the full vertical distance, -R, from the center of the spiral tube to its outside. That means that during 90 degrees of wheel rotation, each of the wheel's 12 ball weights will, on average, only drop a vertical distance of -R/4 and experience a decrease in GPE of -Mg(R/4) and not -Mg(R/3) like you estimated so that all 12 of the ball weights together will, during a 90 degree rotation of the wheel, only experience a total decrease in GPE of 12 x Mg(-R/4) or -3MgR and not -4MgR like you calculated.
As a result, the total change in the GPE of the 13 ball weights during 90 degrees of wheel rotation will only be MgR + (-3MgR) = -2MgR and not -3MgR like you calculated. For a full 360 degree rotation of the wheel, the total change in GPE of the 13 ball weights will be four times as much or only -8MgR and not -12MgR like you calculated. But, the important thing here is that the ball weights in his wheel design should still be constantly losing GPE as the wheel turns and that lost GPE doesn't just disappear but has to go into accelerating all parts of the wheel around it axle's center or into powering some outside machine attached to the wheel's axle.
Despite your initial wrong assumption and the miscalculations that came from it, I think that the mathematical analysis of PMD's wheel still looks very convincing. Maybe it's time for someone to sim this one? But I don't think that will be easy to do because of the spiral tubes that will have to be made for the sim.
jason
I'm happy (and a little surprised) to see that my Spiral Tube Wheel design created a bit of a stir here and got people to thinking about how it might or might not work.
DeleteI could not make the spiral tubes used in it with my MS Paint drawing program so I had to find an image of one of them on Google Images and then I just copy it and paste it into my drawing four times.
Unfortunately, what I initially found and used in the drawing is a tight spiral and required me to exaggerate how far each of its curving inner surfaces would cause a lead ball weight to roll to one side of an imaginary vertical line passing down through the center of the spiral. For a real physical model of this wheel, one should try to use a less tight type of spiral that is called a "logarithmic spiral". It looks like this one:
https://media.cheggcdn.com/study/a12/a1258711-d738-4856-b125-6584e045ca89/DC-1797V1.png
Its quickly expanding and less curved surfaces will help to shift the rolling ball weights as far to the right of the vertical y axis passing through the center of the spiral as possible and in a physical wheel that will push the center of gravity of its thirteen weights as far onto the wheel's descending side as possible which will then increase the wheel's torque as much as possible.
Thanks to all those who took the time to comment on my design.
PM Dreamer
I think I know exactly why PMD's comment revealing his amazing spiral tube wheel design "mysteriously" disappeared.
DeleteThat "glitch" that made it disappear for about 24 hours was deliberately caused by secret government agents who routinely monitor the free energy type blogs and websites to make sure nothing is being revealed that would threaten the use of fossil fuels and the flow of bribe money to the politicians to make sure nothing real is ever done about Climate Change that would cut back on the use of fossil fuels. When they saw PMD's wheel drawing and that he published a link to it they freaked out because they realized that it is a runner and a powerful one at that!
Their solution was to tap a few keys on their computer keyboards to quietly delete his comment to make sure as few people as possible saw the drawing he produced. They've been doing that all over the internet for decades now with the designs of other inventors as well. That worked here for a while, but they didn't expect John to be able to resurrect PMD's comment.
That's why it's important that as many as possible download and save his drawing. Those government spooks wouldn't do something like that if they knew it was just another worthless nonrunner. No, they know it's a runner and a threat to the profit hungry capitalist status quo of our world.
@PM Dreamer
DeleteI think that you have found a really incredible design. As it turns, 12 of its 13 ball weights are constantly rolling downhill and only a single ball weight is rising. I've never seen anything like it. If those thumping noises in Bessler's wheels had been up around the top of the turning drum and he had pulled ball weights instead of cylinder ones out of the Merseburg wheel drum during its official examination to lighten it, I would definitely consider your spiral design to be the secret of his wheels. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Congratulations on your spiral wheel design PMD. The nicest thing I can say about it is that I wish that I had come up with it. And if I had I would not be showing it here. I would be patenting it right now and looking for a company to buy the patent from me for several hundred million dollars!
DeleteWTF! What happened to PMD's earlier comment that he made just before mryy's comment of 17 September 2022 at 17:35 where PMD gave a link to the drawing he made of his "Spiral Tube Wheel"??? It's suddenly gone!
ReplyDeleteHave you started deleting people's comments here again and hoping no one will notice?! That is VERY rude of you. Some who came here late might want to download the image of that wheel design he provided us with. Why are you trying to prevent that and censor his wheel design???
Maybe John deleted PMD's comment by accident and he's not even aware yet that the did that? Things like that can occasionally happen. If so then he should restore his comment as soon as possible and apologize to PMD. It's hard enough to get visitors to reveal anything here like mryy and PMD have done and the last thing we need is for their wheel drawings to start disappearing when they do so.
DeleteThis is weird. I didn’t delete the comment with the drawing, and yet it’s not showing. PMD didn’t delete it otherwise that would show up. I looked in the comments section of my blog and it’s still there! So I’ll try and copy and paste it back but I’m not sure I can get it back to its original place. It may follow this comment.
DeletePS I would never delete any comment unless it’s promoting something I strongly disagree with or the language is unacceptable.
JC
Ok it’s back! For some reason it had a tick next to it which means I need to approve it, I didn’t think that was still operating for comments, any way it’s back.
DeleteJC
"PS I would never delete any comment unless it’s promoting something I strongly disagree with..."
DeleteSuch as Ken B's wheel for example? Lol!
Precisely!
DeleteJC
The spirals make no difference. It’s a balanced wheel, don’t bother with a sim or build.
DeleteB showed us what doesn’t work, so designs like this can all be compared to one of the MT drawings, and they need what he says they need in mt 15: a prime mover.
If gravity were the mover, all of the MT’s would work. He’s telling us that gravity isn’t the mover with those drawings.
@JC
DeleteDeleting posts mentioning Ken B or his wheel might make you feel good for a while, but that will not get rid of it. You need to produce something more convincing to draw his followers or "disciples" away from it. They are accepting it at this time more as a matter of faith than fact. It's almost like a religion to them. They don't seem to be bothered that a physical model based on the design has yet to be built and assume that it is only a matter of time before it will be. They are almost like "born again" Christians who expect Jesus to return any day now. People need their religions and Ken B has actually provided some of them with one!
@Jeff
No it's not a balanced wheel because its center of gravity is definitely on the descending side. You need to reread the comments by anon 11:08 and Jason above. Their calculations clearly show that in PMD's wheel there is only one weight that gains some gpe while twelve other ones are losing even more gpe at the same time so that, overall, the weights continually lose gpe as the wheel turns. There's nothing like it in MT.
@ 04:35. I don’t delete Ken B comments to “make me feel good”, I do it because his wheel’s entire concept and construction are based on totally imaginary clues and I’m amazed that anyone would accept their legitimacy when they are so blatantly made up from rorschach type visual impressions. His perceptions are more likely to worthy of the study of a psychological evaluation to gain insight into his narcissistic personality. But my main complaint is that they divert researcher’s attention into Bessler’s wheel by drawing attention to misleading so-called clues.
DeleteJC
Same shirt, different day.
Delete"But my main complaint is that they divert researcher’s attention into Bessler’s wheel by drawing attention to misleading so-called clues."
DeleteJohn, when you finally reveal all of your clues, you will undoubtedly find others saying the same things about them. Each Bessler pm wheel chaser seems to automatically think that his clues are the real ones and everyone else's are just delusions that can only lead them down dead end streets to more failures.
Ultimately, only a working physical wheel based on one's claimed clues can prove that they are actually clues and not just a collection of delusions. Right now neither you, Ken B, nor anyone else has one of those working physical wheels. But, unlike you, he has revealed all of the details of his research and I think a lot of people like his openness. However, I can also understand how his dogmatic assertion that only the design he found is actually the one Bessler used could turn a lot of people off. In today's paranoid world we tend to suspect anyone who is too certain about anything as being delusional or having ulterior motives of some sort.
Yet he also seems flexible enough to concede that there are designs different from his that could also work and produce pm (even Bessler would not do that). Are you willing to concede that? Fawk, that wheel PMD revealed in this blog might be one of them or even that wheel with the flying weights by mryy. I'm hoping someone will eventually try simming both of them to see what they can do. They are truly novel designs in a world clogged by the many variations of a few basic nonrunning designs that have been around for centuries.
It would really be a pity if someone actually did have a working design, but it only remained a drawing that was eventually lost because it was never revealed to anyone else or if it was revealed, it was never built or, in today's digital age, never even simmed. Fawk, this might have already happened multiple times since Bessler built his wheels. Three centuries without another working pm wheel of any type being built seems too long a time considering the thousands who have tried to find such designs. No wonder the skeptics just want to dismiss the entire subject of pm as one big pile of nonsense produced by those ignorant of mechanics and money hungry hoaxers. It is up to those who claim it's possible to prove it is and, so far, they haven't been doing a very good job of that.
I totally agree with you anon 17:01, only a working physical wheel based on my claimed clues will prove that they are actually clues and not a collection of delusions. It is for this reason that I’m determined to build a working physical wheel and publish drawings showing how it works.
DeleteI’ve published more than 20 clues in www.the Orffyreus code.com, described the existence of other codes on other of my web sites, described many other on this blog over the years - none of them have been accepted even though they are easily understood. The only time I relented a posted a description of a rough plan, it was dismissed. Why would I go to the trouble of sharing everything I’ve discover to date before I’ve built it and proved It?
JC
@06:30. I know how it looks, but from my perspective my actions seem reasonable. I think we all display narcissistic behaviour occasionally and I’m sure I do too, but although my plan is simple, awkward circumstances sometimes get in the way, causing delay. I also understand that my age limits my capabilities somewhat, but my intentions are clear; build and/or share asap.
DeleteJC
Am I the only one here who noticed that John avoided answering that simple question Anon 17:01 above asked him which was:
Delete"Yet he [Ken B.] also seems flexible enough to concede that there are designs different from his [Ken B's] that could also work and produce pm (even Bessler would not do that). Are you [John] willing to concede that?"
So what's your answer to that simple question, John?
Do you currently believe that ONLY you have a design that will work or do you "concede" that there can be OTHER designs different from yours that can also work?
Ken's design has been physically built by a Besslerwheel forum member and it didn't work, and he made no effort to modify it. He's too big of a coward to come forward and admit it. So he hides behind various names here as well as anonymous comments **that reply to his own comments in the third person.** Talk about narcissistic. At least John explains his delay and his reticence - drawn from past experience: don't jump the gun anymore. I for one think he will stay true to his word. Ken can't put on his big boy pants.
DeleteJeff
Sorry for not answering the question Anon 17:01, and Anon 12:53. I don’t believe Ken B’s wheel has a chance in hell of working, nor do I think it bears any resemblance to Bessler’s wheel. Do I think that there are other designs different from mine that can also work? Possibly, it depends on how different the designs are, from mine. I think mine is the same as Bessler’s and therefore it will work, and if another different design was found to work, the way it worked would have mimic my design even if it looked different, and I don’t see how that would be possible.
DeleteIt’s difficult to make a claim of success without a working model, and after my several claims to have found the solution only to find that I was wrong, I’m reluctant to say much about my design but when I’m asked I try to predict a date for success, I do try to be honest but we don’t know what problems lie in wait around the corner to ambush our intentions. For those who don’t know what I’m referring to, you could visit my granddaughter's TikTok page and discover her extraordinary story. Just google amyepohl to learn of her five year struggle with the results of a hospital blunder. She went from very successful school teacher graduating with honours, to being an influencer on TikTok, paralysed from the waist downwards.
JC
"Do I think that there are other designs different from mine that can also work? Possibly, it depends on how different the designs are, from mine. I think mine is the same as Bessler’s and therefore it will work, and if another different design was found to work, the way it worked would have mimic my design even if it looked different, and I don’t see how that would be possible. "
DeleteLol! John is basically saying that his design is the same as Bessler's working design and that he can't see how any other wheel design could possibly work if it does not "mimic" or closely resemble his design both in form and function. This translates into him saying that he thinks only HIS design can work and all other different designs cannot work and are therefore worthless as far as achieving pm is concerned.
Imo, John has now amply demonstrated that he is in fact a BIGGER narcissist than Ken B who, although he also insists that he has found Bessler's actual design, accepts that other designs CAN work even if they don't "mimic" or closely resemble the one he found both in form and function.
This now also explains why John had nothing positive to say about either mryy's or PMD's wheel designs in this blog. Since he must consider them both worthless designs that cannot work because they don't "mimic" his particular design in form and function, if he said anything positive about either of them, then he would only be lying. So better to say nothing and just hope they both get forgotten a few blogs from now as he continues to consider that only HE has a working design which is same as Bessler's.
Thanks for finally clearing this up for all of us, John. Now we all know exactly where your head is when it comes to Bessler's wheels and why you never say anything positive or encouraging about anyone else's wheel design and not just Ken's B design (which seems to have a lot of fans who consider it to be "the" solution despite your rejection of it).
@anon 17:32. Thank you for your comment. You’re entitled to your opinion but don’t put words in my mouth, I never said any of that and I didn’t think it. You leap from one assumption to another without any consideration for the meaning and intention underlying the words, but I guess that’s the roll of a troll, which you clearly are.
DeleteDo you known the meaning of ‘projection’ when used psychologically? It refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else. That is you I think. You are also displaying symptoms of narcissism. For example people who have
‘an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others.’
JC
JC: "I never said any of that and I didn’t think it."
DeleteYet the fact remains that JC never says anything positive about anyone else's design on this blog. I think this issue became more obvious in this particular blog because it is unusual in being the first where TWO novel pm wheel designs appeared at the same time and both look like they have the potential to be runners even though everyone seems to think they weren't used by Bessler.
But, before anyone gets too distracted by JC's pop psychology counter attack on anon 17:32's criticism of him, note that JC STILL cannot ACTUALLY SAY that a pm wheel design that is COMPLETELY different from his design (whatever it is and assuming that it actually exists!) might also work.
If he's not a narcissist who needs to regularly inflate his own ego by continuing to believe that only HIS design can work, then why can he not say that other completely different designs by other inventors might also work? Ken B doesn't seem to have a problem saying that. Until and unless JC can say that, then I think that anon 17:32's claim that JC is a bigger narcissist than Ken B is a valid one.
@ 02:28
DeleteI haven’t commented on other designs posted here for a long time, preferring to leave it to other visitors. I found that being critical of one design and positive about another aroused indignation and disappointment in one and criticism of my opinion. I don’t need to invite recriminations I already have enough of them.
As for your other comment, you asked a question and I gave you what I thought was a reasonable answer; how can I know if another completely different design might work? Obviously I think mine might work, but a different design concept that I’m not aware of is possible but I can’t know in advance. If my design has solved the question about the inclusion of prime mover, then I think that there is only one way to do that but using other material to generate the same reactions, might work, such as water or mercury to replace the weights might be possible.
JC
"TWO novel pm wheel designs appeared at the same time and both look like they have the potential to be runners"
DeleteThere is not a single design shown on this blog that have the potential to be runners .
"I think that anon 17:32's claim that JC is a bigger narcissist than Ken B is a valid one."
So both are narcissists ? why are you so invested in who's the "biggest narcissist" , why do you care what people believe ,when no one has a working design or a runner.
I don’t.
DeleteJC
When John wrote:
Delete"Obviously I think mine might work, but a different design concept that I’m not aware of is possible but I can’t know in advance."
It sounded like he was generously acknowledging in that line that wheel designs completely different from his own could possibly work. BUT, note the part where he writes "...that I'm NOT aware of..." which then excludes any designs that he IS aware of "in advance". That's where he ruins it!
Imo, he's really saying that IF he DOES know in advance what another design is because its inventor revealed it, he can then immediately compare it to his own and, when he sees that it does not "mimic" his own, that automatically guarantees to him that it must be a nonrunner and therefore worthless! I think this elitist pm philosophy of his is based on his erroneously belief that there is only ONE design that can actually work, which he's convinced that he already has, and nothing completely different from it has any hope of being a runner.
Also maybe the real reason that he never says anything about other inventors' designs that are revealed (other than a lot of negative things about Ken B's design here) is because, if he did so, his elitist pm philosophy would soon become apparent? His silence is not mainly intended to spare the tender feelings of others, but rather to allow him to continue to hide his own pm philosophy and avoid having it criticized as it has been in the last few comments here.
Let's see if he can ever get to the point where he can say that it might actually be possible for someone else's revealed in advance and also completely different from his own wheel design to work even though it does NOT "mimic" his own design in any way. That does not mean that he has to agree that the other revealed design actually is "the" one Bessler used...just that the other design, even though he's 100% convinced that it's NOT "the" one Bessler used, MIGHT also be a workable pm wheel design at least until thorough future testing shows it is definitely not workable.
John, I don't think anon 11:21 has "got it in for you" or that he's really Ken B posting anonymously. I just think, like some here, he's picked up on the little Freudian slips you occasionally make in your comments that suggest that you will automatically dismiss any designs that don't agree with yours as not only not being Bessler's, but also having no hope of working. If you went over to the bw forum and started suggesting that about the various designs there while still refusing to reveal any design you have, they would quickly insult you right off of their forum as I'm sure you are well aware.
DeleteWhether you realize it or not, that subtle message you give out is a very insensitive and disparaging one. Even if you are right and you actually have finally found Bessler's design, there is no way that you can know for a fact that there are no other pm wheel designs that could also work even though they don't match your design. Even Bessler could not know that for a fact although he certainly sounded like he did in his writings.
My advice to you would be to try to be more tolerant of designs that don't match yours in any way. One of them might actually be a runner, but if the inventor sees you putting it down, he might get discouraged and just abandon it since the great John Collins, possessor of Bessler's design and the only one that can ever possibly work, has judged that inventor's design to be too different and therefore it must be just another waste of time nonrunner. Maybe if he wasn't so discouraged and then abandoned his design, it could have eventually been further refined until it actually did become a runner even though it was much different from Bessler's and yours?
I accept criticism honestly offered and even though I might not always agree with it, I know that I may come across as insensitive sometimes and not realise it. I think I’m just stating an opinion, but perhaps I should be more aware of the situation. Part of the problem is that I’ve having been having these discussions for so long I feel as though I’ve encountered every design imaginable. Obviously I haven’t but that is some times how it feels. The last thing I want to do is discourage anybody from trying to discover Bessler’s secret so if I have offended people I apologise, it was not intended. The conversations shown above are not part of my normal to and fro discussions but I found the accusations to be more upsetting than usual, but in future I’ll try to keep my emotions under control. I thank you for your advice. Anon 18:30.
DeleteJV
https://i.postimg.cc/3wSHmRGf/besslerupd16.jpg
ReplyDeleteA one-directional wheel employing 12 levers, 12 yellow launching weights, and 4 red flying weights.
Moonlight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47GNvweu4vM&t=8s
https://i.postimg.cc/Ss9gL6xK/besslerupd19.jpg
DeleteMore accurate drawing of the 12-lever design. You like?
When Bessler Wheel Meets Peacock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBDz4MjdrEo
It looks like your new twelve lever variation of your "untethered flying weight wheel" allows for the addition of three of the lighter red weights instead of just one. One should expect that to increase torque.
DeleteBut, I see a potential problem with the design. If you look at just the heavier yellow weights, it looks like their center of gravity will be below and to the left of the center of the axle. However, the center of gravity of the three lighter red weights will, after the red weight is shot up at 6:00 and reaches the waiting 3:00 lever, be located much farther to the right of the center of the axle and much farther below it than the center of gravity of just the twelve yellow weights.
I suspect that if you were to make a sim of your wheel, you would find that the center of gravity of ALL of its fifteen weights would, after a red weight was shot up to land in the waiting 3:00 lever, be located right below the axle's center so that it would not be able to produce any torque to turn the wheel. If that is the case, then your wheel would not be able to turn so that the next lever can reach 6:00 and then shoot its red weight back up to the waiting lever at 3:00.
If someone sims your wheel design, that is one of the first things they will be checking for which is where exactly, in relation to the center of the wheel's axle, is the center of gravity of all of its weights, both heavy and light, located. It may turn out that it's actually possible for a lever reaching 6:00 to shoot its lighter red weight all the way back up to the waiting 3:00 lever and have it reliably land on it, but the wheel won't turn enough by itself to move a red weight carrying lever into the 6:00 position so that can happen. The simmer might even have to attach a motor to the wheel to turn it just to see the continuous return flights of the red weights as their levers reach 6:00 and shoot them back up again.
I know from much bitter experience that designs usually look great in static drawings, but then fail totally when sims or physical models are actually made of them. Making sims and physical models is a humbling experience. I am now VERY humbled...
anon 10:47, do note that my latest drawings while more accurate do not represent reality. For example, the imagined positions you see of the weights rolling down the lever arms or blue guides may or may not be it in their exact places. The wheel will need tweaking.
DeleteI'm not sure about your assertion that the CoG of the 15 weights is exactly below the axle. I think it's somewhere further to the right of it. Also this 12-lever design could possibly take as many as 5 flying red weights.
I actually have been thinking a bit about the optimum trajectory path of the launched weight. It may ideally be a straighter higher path with less/little of a downward curve than what's been shown in my past designs. More like this (this time with 5 flying weights):
https://i.postimg.cc/kgx3h4P5/besslerupd20.jpg
Again the wheel will need fine tuning before it truly becomes the ??theOne$$. Design parameters such as weights ratio, lever shape, etc. have to be tested out. I don't know if sims can accurately model objects in free flight though. I believe this wheel concept conforms to the many clues, descriptions and symbols found in the documents. It has a primer mover -- that self-triggering lever. And the lever system resembles a "5", John Bessler's favorite number! After 300 years we all deserve to give ourselves a little faith, hope and confidence. :)
Some may feel that the airborne flying weight as it impacts the target upper lever could bounce off and drop back down to the bottom. I say this is less likely to happen because the weight is spinning while in flight (remember that it was rolling down the 6:00 lever arm prior to launch.) When it comes in contact with that upper lever I'd imagine that the spinning weight will "roll" itself into the contour of the lever arm landing inside the cup.
DeleteThere's another problem with your design, mryy.
DeleteAs the wheel's speed increases, the CF acting on the yellow weights on the descending side will increase and that will cause them to begin launching their red weights before their levers reach the wheel's 6 o'clock location. That will then mess up the launch trajectory of a red weight and it might not be able to reliably land on a 3 o'clock lever.
If any one of the red weights does not make it back onto a descending side lever, then it will just fall and wind up at the bottom of the wheel and cause everything to come to a stop. As it bounces around down there before coming to rest, it might even damage the wheel.
As the wheel's speed increases, I believe the CF (Centripetal Force) would have the opposite effect and slow the yellow weights' movement along the lever rails. CF acts inwardly toward the wheel's center and is proportional to the rotational speed. Hence the weight will remain on the lever before reaching the bottom of the wheel. Once it is at 6:00 the weight free falls onto the drum/blue guides, triggering the lever back up and thereby ejecting the red weight.
Deletehttps://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html
I was thinking that the red weight could be a sphere instead of a cylinder like the yellow launching weight. Due to its perfect symmetry the weight can land on the upper lever in any orientation. Perhaps the cylinder wrapped in handkerchief that Bessler presented to witnesses was just a launching weight?
https://i.postimg.cc/15QjzQg8/besslerupd22.jpg
DeleteI modified the catch arm of the lever. I made it longer to ensure that the flying weight lands securely on the upper lever. Also it shortens the weight's flight distance. Not drawn to accuracy btw.
"CF acts inwardly toward the wheel's center and is proportional to the rotational speed. "
DeleteThat's not what CF stands for, mryy. CF means centrifugal force and it is always acting on a moving object in a direction away from the center around which the object moves.
As far as CF interfering with the trajectories of the weights being shot up on the descending side of your wheel is concerned, I think you found a possible solution for that problem.
The link I provided states that centrifugal doesn't exist -- in other words, a misnomer for centripetal. Here's a quoted example from the link:
Delete"Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're seeing into centripetal force. So 'centrifugal force gets your washing dry because it makes the water fly out' becomes 'Centripetal force between your clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing dry.' "
The "straight line" of the water mentioned in the above quote is the line tangential, not radial, to the washer drum. Your assumption is that as the wheel's speed increases the yellow weight rolling down the lever will exit the slightly curved rails sooner. This erroneously implies that the weight's speed increases parallel to the rails. But, the increase is actually of the speed that is tangential to the drum -- not parallel to the rails -- so the weight does not depart sooner. The greater centripetal force pulls the weight back a little I think. Further some of the rotational and translational kinetic energies of the rolling weight are being converted to torsional potential energy of the spring, slowing it down. That and the greater centrifugal force reduce the speed of the weight along the rails.
I read your link and at the bottom of the webpage it says:
Delete"Having said all this, there are situations where it makes sense to look at rotating objects from a slightly different viewpoint—and in that case, it can be appropriate and useful to talk about centrifugal force."
I think we have to talk about centripetal and centrifugal forces always happening simultaneously. Centrifugal force is a real force and can be thought of as the opposing reaction of an object to a centripetal force applied to it in an effort to change its DIRECTION of motion. It is similar to the opposing inertial force that appears whenever an external force is applied in an effort to change the SPEED of the motion of an object.
Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force when observed from a certain reference. The quote you provided mentions the phrase "to look at rotating objects from a slightly different viewpoint". This implies that when viewed from some frame of reference centrifugal force seems to exist.
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/XNdy197C/besslerupd23.jpg
DeleteHere's another take on my previous design. This time the catch arm extends from the blue guide instead of the lever. The flying weight lands on the modified guides first and then transitions to the lever as the wheel turns. Not drawn to accuracy.
I like this one better. But I think for the 5 o'clock lever you should have put the yellow weight on its lever guide and the red weight is missing! Also, that 5 o'clock lever should be the one that is just starting to be cocked instead of the 4 o'clock one like you show in your drawing.
DeleteThe drawing shows a wheel in the static start position, held in a state of imbalance before release. The starting red weights are approximately at the 12:00 to 4:00 positions. The empty 5:00 and 6:00 levers cocked and swung back up after the yellow weights dropped off. See the weights on the drum.
DeleteI do feel the ejected weight near the bottom of its trajectory is a little close to the catch arm to its right in this version.
Clearly no one here understands any of it whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteErr...what exactly is that "it" that no one here understands whatsoever?
Delete"Err...what exactly is that "it" that no one here understands whatsoever?" The "it" is the secret of the wheel, another clue here :
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoM8kKDn6Y
@anon 12:26
DeleteThat "no one" you referred to obviously cannot include either JC or Ken B because they BOTH know with certainty that they have solved Bessler's wheel! But, then one wonders how two different designs could both be the solution to the same mystery? One of them must be delusional? But who? Time will tell...maybe...
@anon01:38
DeleteA possible way to reconcile this is to just say B used JC's design on some of his wheels and Ken B's design on the rest of his wheels. But that is also a problem because Ken B claims B only had a single basic design that he used on all of his wheels. Fawk, JC probably also believes the same for his design.
Regardless of what you think of me, surely you can admit here that Ken B’s wheel is not simple, but in fact quite complex and yet Karl expressed surprise at the simplicity of Bessler’s wheel and that it hadn’t been discovered before…ever. For that reason alone we can dismiss the idea that it is the same design as Bessler’s. Added to that the fact that Bessler himself was worried that people would think his machine wasn’t worth the price being asked because it was so simple. My design is also very simple and easy to understand.
DeleteJC
JC wrote "...surely you can admit here that Ken B’s wheel is not simple, but in fact quite complex and...For that reason alone we can dismiss the idea that it is the same design as Bessler’s."
DeleteI wouldn't be so quick to do that.
Maybe if Karl had known all of the precise mathematical details of Bessler's wheels, which Ken B claims to have finally rediscovered, the count wouldn't have used the word "simple" so much? He might instead have been using words like "intricate", "precise", or "skillful" instead when generally describing the wheel's hidden mechanics.
Also, if it was really so "simple", then shouldn't someone else have found it in the last three centuries? The army of pm chasers out there found thousands of simple wheel designs, all nonrunners, during those centuries, but not a single one them ever managed to stumble across the same simple design that Bessler used? Seems highly unlikely to me if Bessler's design really was so simple.
I don't believe Bessler's design was really that simple. But, otoh, I also don't believe it was anywhere near as complicated as the mechanisms I've seen in old clocks and automatons from the 18th century. Maybe Ken B has found it and maybe he has not. If he has, then someone will eventually use the design to make a working replica of one of Bessler's wheels. If he hasn't, then he'll just be another colorful character that came and went on the pm chasing scene like so many before him have. At a minimum he will be credited with writing the biggest book ever devoted solely to the details of Bessler's wheels. I have a lot of trouble imagining something like that being due to him being delusional or trying to hoax everyone. He must have seen some very convincing evidence to make such an effort.
No, the wheel’s design was simple and Ken B’s is far complicated, and it doesn’t work anyway.
DeleteJC
Ken wrote: "At a minimum he will be credited with writing the biggest book ever devoted solely to the details of Bessler's wheels."
DeleteWhat a load!
Jeff
@JC
DeleteYou say "it doesn't work anyway". But, you neglected to mention that he claims to have reliable, clue based sims that show it does work. IIRC, there was a failed attempt to build it by someone over at bwf last year, but there was a question as to how reliably he followed the instructions Ken gives in his book to make a replica of Bessler's 3 foot diameter prototype wheel.
Still, that guy admitted that the design looked like a perfect solution to him and that it was self-starting from some positions, but not others. That could have been due to him not properly balancing the wheel during its construction or not using parts with the right specifications.
It's risky to base one's opinion of any pm wheel design on a single failed attempt to replicate it. At a minimum, I'd like to see at least three failed attempts in a row by different people before I would dismiss anyone's wheel as a hopeless nonrunner. Ken's wheel design is still far from having that done with it.
@Jeff
At about 800 pages, Ken's book is even bigger than that Dircks book on pm that is considered to be a major work in pm literature. Dircks only gives the reader a general overview of the Bessler story and his wheels among many others pm devices he discusses in his book. Ken keeps the focus of his book on how Bessler's wheels worked and how they were constructed.
I should mention that I haven't actually read Ken's book, but those I've talked to who have say it's impressive and did answer the various questions they had about Bessler's wheels. They were looking for answers and he gave them what they were looking for. I think that's most likely why his book is getting all of those five star reviews on its listing over on Amazon.
Ken. You are so transparent. Your book is terrible. Your design is not a runner. Nobody cares about them anymore. Stop trying to sell it on John’s blog. It’s parthetic and sad.
DeleteJeff
Jeff you sound like you've become JC's loyal toadie who will now help him to continue to put down KB, his book, and that B wheel design he found. I think the discovery of that design really shook JC up and he continues to be angry at KB for finding it first and publishing it so that now JC can never go down in history as being its discoverer. If KB found it first it's his reward for putting more effort into finding it than JC did plus also being a lot more lucky.
DeleteWhen it comes to B's wheels KB gave us something new and interesting to think about. All JC has done since 2020 is show us nothing while giving us one excuse after another why it's not yet the right time for him to reveal the design for B's wheel that he thinks his clues describe.
Personally I don't think JC has any design at all. It's just a fiction he's invented to get himself back some of the attention he used to get during his early days at BWF while he now desperately tries to finally find a working B wheel design of his own that most will accept as actually being B's design. Well, he doesn't need to bother anymore with that because KB has already found it for him.
Jeff says what most people think about Ken B. The ‘solution’ Ken offers is not the answer, it doesn’t work and it has nothing to do with Bessler’s wheel. He has included lots of clues but they are not real, they are imaginary and bear a close relationship to rorschach images and his interpretations are illogical guesses designed to fit his ‘solution’.
DeleteThe book suffers from an additional problem, it is full of Ken’s logorrhea, which is another way of saying the author is garrulous to the point where the reader may contemplate suicide. Windy rhetoric abounds and typical words and phrases which litter the book, are for example; ‘probably’, ‘we can imagine’, ‘he intended’, etc. Those 800 pages or so could easily be cut down to 400, and doubtless even less. I had to do it when I published PMAAMS? No publisher will accept a manuscript which is too long for a him to cover the cost of printing, binding and advertising.
I was fortunate to be given access to a free copy and promised an honest review, but in all honesty I cannot recommend it. It is overlong, inaccurate, illogical and unbelievable and it does no favours for our cause, which is to find the solution to Bessler’s wheel.
Do not waste your money on this book,
JC
Can people be persuaded and convinced of something being absolute fact and truth without any real tangible physical proof or otherwise historical accounts and real observations?
DeleteApparently yes , there are indeed people so gullably inclined ,standing behind and defending such utter imaginary nonsense .
You here who support this , do you really care about truth ? It appears that you do not , instead of being blind sheep who would even follow along to the slaughter , why don't you start applying critical thinking and wake up , go and build your "solution" .
By the way I don't mind if you keep heading for a cliff , but are you lot really so naïve to spit the words out as if it absolute truth , a truth you are not even prepared to show or investigate for real , yourselves.
lolol, there is one rating with 5 stars, from a guy in Canada. He said in his review "great read and on time". Woohoo!
Deleteone rating with 3 stars from a guy in Japan. He said in his review "Drawings of the internal structure of the early wheels were somewhat intrigued, but no matter who thinks, they do not move on this.
I wonder why there is no theoretical analysis or analysis related to that."; "It is a long, long story style, and there is no theoretical analysis or analysis.".
The average book on Amazon sells about 250 copies. This book has been on the site for about 43 months (02/2019) and sold less than 1 copy per month, according to the best seller ratings. So *maybe* 20 copies sold. There are a few used ones for sale, not surprising.
Jeff
I also checked and there were only two reviews one, 5 star and the other two star. Not much for 43 months on Amazon. I’ve never sold on Amazon but I still got more than two reviews, one of them was written by Donald Simanek. It was very long and quite fair given his sceptical point of view. He is an emeritus professor of physics at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania. His website includes science, pseudoscience, humor, and satire.written by Donald Simanek. Links to many interesting sites including the history and philosophy of science, pseudoscience, science and religion.
DeleteJC
Yes we're all aware of the professor's site it is a good source for some information even he has written well about the history of Perpetual Motion no matter how well something's written doesn't matter just because you put a pretty Bowl bag of____ doesn't change that it is still a bag of____!
DeleteHere are a few of the criticisms that Donald E. Simanek, the "emeritus professor of physics", wrote in his "quite fair" ONE star review of John book, "Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?":
Delete"The book...becomes tiresomely repetitious in places, but lengthy passages can be skimmed without serious loss."
"Does John Collins 'put forward a convincing argument' that Bessel's machine was capable of extracting energy continuously from gravity? Not at all."
"In his chapter 12 'The secret', one expects to find out how Bessler accomplished his wonderful public demonstrations. Alas, we do not...Unfortunately he does not deliver on these claims."
"Collins speculates that Bessler's wheel was actually tapping energy from the gravitational field...In this he displays his failure to understand the nature of gravity...His subsequent discussion extends this misconception to an apparent misunderstanding of torques, something that ought to embarrass someone who is trained as an engineer."
"But the book does not deliver on the larger claims of its advertising."
Another ONE star reviewer wrote:
"After reading this book, and being sorely disappointed with the last chapter, I felt compelled to warn others that this highly subjective book is neither revealing, nor solving."
These criticisms are probably typical of the reactions of readers of John's book which is now getting close to a quarter century old. There have been many important advances in Bessler research during that time and Ken's book, "The Triumphant Orffyrean Perpetual Motion Finally Explained!", which is now only about three years old will supply the information hungry reader with most of them. Also, unlike John, he will not disappoint those who want to know exactly how Bessler's wheels actually worked and allow so that they can be replicated today. You will find this valuable information nowhere else.
That name Simanek jogged my memory. Here's something I recall reading a few years ago about him.
DeleteAfter Ken B published his book, he made a video of his wheel and put it on youtube. Somehow he managed to get the elderly Simanek, who was retired at that time, to look at it.
Simanek got back to Ken B and told him he was very impressed by the wheel's design and said it was unique and might actually work! He recommended to Ken B to get a patent on the design if he hadn't already done so. Ken B then told him he couldn't do that because it was actually Bessler's invention and not his own.
This means that Ken B's wheel is probably the only one that Simanek ever approved of in his long career of debunking pm devices. You might want to keep this in mind whenever you see someone trying to put down the design which is usually done by a frustrated and envious Bessler pm wheel chaser whose own pm wheels were all nonrunners.
That's an impressive story, anon 04:58, if it's true. I sent a drawing of a wheel design I came up with to Dr. Simanek once which I thought he'd approve. Nope. A day later he got back to me and pointed out several problems with it. I didn't believe him, but I found out after I built it that he was 100% right! Getting any kind of approval from him is next to impossible. But then again he was a professional physicist. He knew his subject well and was very skeptical of any claims of perpetual motion machines. I'm not sure if he's still alive.
DeleteExcuse me, but if you guys are done pishing on those two Bessler books, I'd like to discuss something that the earlier Anon 21 September 2022 at 21:23 comment above brought up about the use of the word "simple" by Karl and Bessler to describe the latter's wheel mechanics. I found this Bessler quote from page 315 of AP that seems to contradict the notion that the mechanics was really that simple:
ReplyDelete"It took a tremendous amount of calculation before I was able to devise this machine! It took a great deal of time before it was all properly figured out!"
So my question is this: If Bessler's wheel design was so "simple", why did it require him to do a "tremendous amount of calculation" to make it work? If it was actually so simple, then shouldn't it have required almost no calculations to make it work? Also, would a carpenter's boy who was a trade apprentice without formal education be able to do all of those necessary calculations so he could also make copies of Bessler's wheels?
PM Dreamer
La recherche et l'empirisme passe par plein de méandres et de calculs pour aboutir à une solution optimale. La copie passe par l'observation et le pieds à coulisse.
DeleteJ.B
Research and empiricism go through many meanderings and calculations to arrive at an optimal solution. The copy goes through observation and sliding feet.
J.B
@PM Dreamer that quote referred to his design and building of the two-way wheel, and that difficulty is another reason for not trying to build a two-way wheel until you’ve succeeded in building the one-way wheel. Thank you for reminding me of that point.
DeleteJC
"It makes no sense whatsoever no one's interested in it."
ReplyDeleteA lot of people here feel the exact same way about your comments!
Shemp
I don’t know why Ken continues to lurk around this blog SG, I guess he’s lonely.
ReplyDeleteJC
Yeah John misery loves company
ReplyDeleteHey John have you ever played the royal game of ur it's actually the oldest known board game from ancient Mesopotamia it dates back to 2400 BC it is a simple game to learn however the strategies can be highly complex it is a very interesting game me and my oldest son play occasionally I would think you'd enjoy it you can learn it on YouTube there is a film with Irving Finkel who explains the rules. it really does explain a lot of the way ancient man was more advanced in some ways than we are today
ReplyDelete