Sorry for my absence guys, I’ve been busy with my book and also with a number of jobs around my house, as listed by my very patient other half. I’ve just finished painting a very large ceiling and (hopefully) that’s all.
I’ve always been an early riser and I find it’s the best time of the day to add more illustrations to my book, and I’m writing explanatory text, and rewriting it, explaining my interpretations and making sure everything is logical and acceptable. In view of the deservedly awful reception KB received for his monumental work on Bessler, I’m determined to try to avoid getting a similar response, although I don’t really have any fears of that because the codes and clues I describe are plain to see and my interpretations obvious once you understand them.
In addition I’m getting back to work on building a model, a proof of principle wheel. I had all but given up on that because of the lack of a usable work shop, and the belief that illustrations, simulations and explanatory text would convince people that this was the solution. However I had an email from a long time correspondent who has supported my efforts from the start, who declined to receive my explanation saying he couldn’t consider asking his peers to evaluate such a document regardless of how detailed it might be. He said the institutions which support the established laws of physics wouldn’t even consider anything less than a working model as a proof of concept or principle. He’s right, I was looking through my blogs yesterday, just searching for the occurrences of the number five, and there were a lot of blogs about the use of number five including ‘sharing information blogs’ going back to 2011, and looking at the comments on them, I see that most of my information details are either dismissed or ignored.
I have no problem with this as it’s all a matter of opinion until firm evidence is produced, which is why I’m delighted to be back in the workshop now it’s at last available. I will be adding the occasional picture of my build as it progresses.
It’s good to back on here as well.
JC
KB's monumental work is a monument to self deception
ReplyDeleteTrue! JC
Delete"...explaining my interpretations and making sure everything is logical and acceptable."
DeleteUnfortunately, no one will really care about what YOU consider is "logical and acceptable". They will want to see a working sim at least. Without that they will just dismiss any book you crank out as a collection of someone's particular Bessler wheel delusions like those of hundreds of others on the internet.
Which is why I’m building a PoP and making a sim
DeleteJC
Hello John collins how can I get in touch with you I worked out how and why his wheels where as skinny as they were the hollow design is outside of newtons law and there is only one way to achieve this design which would make as per johahann says it is hollow and the width of the wheel is determined by the weights I have proper evidence I know what I’m talking about as I’ve built wheels ranging from 600mm in diameter to 2.4m and my latest 3m in diameter e but I mainly built them to figure how and why his wheel were the width they were then went back to drawing board and it’s were I stumbled upon my number that linked to earth in a sense that determined how heavy they were and I had surprising evidence which I know now something that would change your whole view on how you would go building the wheel I would like to share though a lot of everyone round me for years put me down crazy and now a lot of them know a little of what I’ve shown them and want to be a part of it though I have more faith in maybe disclosing to you as the hard work you have put in with this and not to u dermine ypu but I’m telling you that you will freak out with my findings
Delete@anon 15:08
DeleteThat's quite generous of you to share your Bessler wheel discoveries with John, but he can't risk that. In the unlikely event he actually finds something that works and it looks anything like what you shared with him, then you would be able to claim his discovery was based on your research and you would be in a position to grab some of his glory. He can't allow that to happen!
Btw. You need to learn how to use the period to form sentences!
Thank you anon 15:08, but I’m happy to continue working on my own and prefer to stick to my own theory about how Bessler’s whee worked. Have you built any working proof of principle wheels?
DeleteJC
yes
DeleteOh no, not again! It seems to me, we've been on that point several times. But yes, you'll do what you have to do. The endless story continues...
ReplyDeleteIt's what I call the "JC Cycle". The first phase is some happy talk about what he plans to do soon...then silence...then creative excuses why he's getting nothing done or can't show anything yet...then more silence...then the cycle begins anew with more happy talk! We're currently in the silence phase following the beginning happy talk phase of this blog. Someone earlier this year said that if we don't see anything new from JC by the beginning of summer, then we won't see anything new from him for the rest of the year. The beginning of summer was back on June 21st. We can now look forward to another 4 and a half months of seeing nothing new from him. At the beginning of next year expect him to start the year off with a lot of happy talk!
DeleteYou guys can be so cruel! Perhaps I’ll share some MORE stuff soon. I don’t know of anyone any where who has posted so many clues and interpretations as I have - and they’re all correct.
DeleteJC
This is not about personal achievement. This should not be a race to see who reaches the finish line first. Rather, effective approach and collaborative solution finding. John, if you are honest with yourself, is this really the result? You are not accountable in any way, however, with this way of acting you can hardly expect different reactions from your blog readers.
DeleteOr you may just be significantly misunderstood. Then this would be exceedingly unfortunate, in case all your work contains that huge value you seem to claim for yourself.
John writes "I don’t know of anyone any where who has posted so many clues and interpretations as I have - and they’re all correct."
DeleteIf they were "all correct", then how come you STILL don't have a working wheel or at least a working sim??? Maybe they really aren't clues or, if they are, they don't mean what you think they mean. The field of pm research is filled with delusional people who are all 100% convinced they are right. Yet, with the sole exception of Bessler, nothing ever comes from all of their certainty. Meanwhile, the scientists just sit back and enjoy the show because they are 100% certain that Bessler was just a clever swindler. So far, no one's been able to prove them wrong. Oh, but he had to be genuine because Count Karl vouched for him. Means nothing. I've had some of the most sincere people I ever met try to convince me that humans never landed on the Moon and an invisible man in the sky made the universe in six days!
A bunch of people always asking for John to post new clues and information , which they themselves then go about shooting down , behavior that does not make sense whatsoever.
DeleteThank you anon 12:27, my thoughts exactly.
DeleteJC
By the way, I'd be perfectly ready to make simulations for you. As I'm someone who has a lot of time, this would make very much sense.
ReplyDeleteJust to have that mentioned!
We believe..... Happy to hear of your process
ReplyDeleteHow quickly the world of Bessler wheel chasers has forgotten the breakthrough research of Giuseppe Pelotti. I wonder if he still lives or if he was taken from us by covid before he could complete his wheel and get it running?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7cd-WADsN0
How history treats the failed Bessler wheel chaser:
Deletehttps://i.giphy.com/media/g1QXhpbtMsX9C/giphy.webp
Lol! They must have to regularly empty that dumpster to keep it from overflowing!
DeleteSalve, sono ancora qui, quel meccanismo secondo me nato dagli indizi che sono, colpi sparati, leve a forma di Y, meccanismo a becco di cicogna e dalla stella 12 punte dovrebbe fare parte della prima ruota costruita da Bessler, ora
Deletesto occupandomi della seconda ruota quella che non é molto rumorosa, che i pesi vagano senza una meta, ma ovviamente il movimento é seppellito molto profondamente, e la ricerca continua, Saluto tutti gli appassionati che seguono il BLOG.
Giuseppe Pelotti
Translation of above:
DeleteHi, I'm still here, in my opinion that mechanism born from the clues that are, shots fired, Y-shaped levers, stork's beak mechanism and the 12-pointed star should be part of the first wheel built by Bessler, now I'm working on the
second wheel that is not very noisy, that the weights wander aimlessly, but obviously the movement is buried very deeply, and the research continues. Greetings to all the enthusiasts who follow the BLOG.
Giuseppe Pelotti
I have been researching this subject for well over 40 years now, and whilst I am fairly certain that Bessler 'cracked' the problem and even left a lot a clues in his documents (assuming that John Collins' translator was not too inaccurate), most people (if not all) are way off the mark, including John himself. NOTHING FALLS. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN POSSIBLY WORK IS IF THE MECHANISM IS BUILT SO IT IS ALWAYS IMBALANCED AND NEVER ABLE TO ACHIEVE EQUILIBRIUM. Bessler tells you this - read the translations of his books carefully.
ReplyDeleteTwo mechanisms should be all that are necessary to show the priciple. Three might produce a useful working model, and the more you add the more power you get. Five should be better than three, but it's very doubtful that five is any more inciteful than seven or nine.
@Anonymous20 August 2023 at 18:31
DeleteUnfortunately, it is impossible for a wheel to be unbalanced without weights falling. Even Besslers weights fell, as people heard falling down and banging inside his wheels.
That's what most people think, and that's probably why people keep designing all sorts of mechanisms that involve weights falling, but never able to reset themselves back to the starting position. Bessler's wheels probably made noise as weights were moved to a greater arm of force on one side of his wheels. There is NO evidence that they fell, that's just what observers thought. I say probably because unless somebody has a copy of a definitive drawing of Bessler's internal wheel details, it's irrelevant what he did as nobody can ever prove it. There will be a basic principle involved, however, and it's that which is more important than deciphering Bessler's ramblings, or mine, or anybody else's. If anybody ever does determine the principle it should be possible to build all manner of devices that look nothing like Bessler's wheels. Lastly, the two-way design is not of much use for power generation and should be disregarded. I am also not fully convinced that everything within his wheel design rotated with the axle. Something else most people may find hard to accept???
DeleteI came back to this site this morning a bit more sober than yesterday, and felt I owed a little more explanation.
DeleteI was researching this subject BEFORE John wrote his first book, and when I came across it and read it I actually met John, hoping that he had some real insights. Unfortunately, after a few months of interaction I came to the opinion then that whilst his efforts on the translations were inciteful, his ideas about how the wheels worked were not. He wanted to keep looking for cipher clues in Bessler's documents, whilst I believe that the biggest clue they offer is that Bessler had genuinely devised a true prime gravity powered engine. Other clues offered by the books are there in plain words and not necessarily hidden in ciphers. All the nonsense people prattle-on about gravity NOT being a source of energy is irrelevant when a lot of our machines only work because they use the effects of gravity in some part of their operation.
Thousands and thousands of hours and GBP money thinking, designing, building and failing actually gives a good practical (beyond the theory) understanding of why 'falling' weights can never regain the lost potential energy purely under the effects of gravitation. Most of the 'brilliant' ideas that most of the people visiting this site think they have come up with have already been considered and dismissed many times before.
So, I watch, but have resisted the temptation to write on these sites before, as, like most of social media, there is very little true value in it. I understand mechanical engineering pretty well, have my own workshop where I can relatively easily machine and build devices, and, have computer design and animation facilities. It's possible that I might have some valuable insights, but you look pretty foolish when you proudly announce you have discovered something that's actually 'old hat'. John's been on his 'triumphant unveiling soon' theme since before the start of this millenium with the cryptic five clues. I feel Enid Blyton's insight into pentographic puzzles with her 'Famous Five' books will be more fruitful.
Anyway, I will resist scanning for any useful information whilst slightly inebriated in future. Best of luck to you all, but if anybody really does finally crack it you should understand that 'free energy' will probably cause far more problems than you can ever imagine!
I’m not sure I’ve ever met you anon 10:55, there have been few face to face meetings since I began, maybe six or seven, and two have passed on which leaves very few to consider. Your lack of interest in Bessler’s clues leaves me scratching my head because it has always been my experience that those with whom I’ve communicated have expressed interest in the said clues. But if a puzzle?
DeleteJC
Ma quali sarebbero i problemi della energia libera, se posso spendere tanti soldi in tante alte cose, questo é un tema da studiare.
DeleteGiuseppe Pelotti.
Translation of above:
DeleteBut what would be the problems of free energy, if I can spend so much money on so many other things, this is a topic to be studied.
Giuseppe Pelotti.
Apologies for writing 'inciteful', when I meant to write 'insightful'.
ReplyDeleteI also am sorry that I don't want to waste a lot of time bantering on your site. However, we met (after arranging it) one evening in the late 1990s in Leominster where you were selling horse bedding at a West Midlands Farmers event. We went to a local pub afterwards and discussed the subject. After that, we corresponded by e-mail for a few months, but eventually I deecided that keeping my mouth shut until I really had something concrete to talk about would be better than keep talking about 'pet' ideas. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that you were talking about the clues in some of Bessler's documents that you had. These will probably be the books you took all the information from to write your first book, and then later released as translations. Those were more enlightening than your first book, in my opinion.
So, I wish you well with your efforts and if you really do have something at last, that's great. I do think though, that if you spent as much time learning to use CAD and building test models as you do on these web sites of yours it might be more beneficial.
@Anonymous21 August 2023 at 14:22
DeleteI think I know you, you are Oh Seok Kyun who published videos of your Sequeen Bessler wheel on YouTube. You show a turning wheel but the mechanism inside doesn't seem to move very much. Are those weights at the end? And do the wheels stop turning after running for a while?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPC3DkG0V4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps2uKsaIG-o
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hELpvbAH0UM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIbvp7WebY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dcDJsWiIf9A
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OkwgMxcMMHA
Really? I am Oh Seok Kyun who met John in the late 1990's? I think I will just drink the beer and not engage with stupidity.
DeleteJohn: I believe you edited your comment after I replied to it, so it does not read as it did where you were disputing my comment that you had been going on about Bessler's clues since before the millenium.. Yes, you did make reference to me to 'the codes' in Bessler's documentation pre 2000...And, I am pretty sure that documentation is Bessler's books you published translations of in the 2000s. So yes, I believe you have been singing the same song for years. It might keep sucking people in to buy the 'next thrilling instalment' but it's a bit annoying to people like me whose only real interest is seeing a solution to this enigma. It's always good to imagine you have a solution though and put off the misery of finding out how wrong you were when you build it.
You are very wrong about me not being interested in Bessler's clues. I was very interested in Bessler's clues, but not your cryptic ones, which may or may not be clues at all. I was disappointed with your first book because whilst it gave a good historical account, there was little real technical information of value. The translations of Bessler's books are far more useful if you wade through all the verbage and extract the relevant detail. He actually gives fairly detailed but ambiguous clues in the text and if you really consider them properly I believe you may get more enlightenment than looking at obscure cryptic clues. He may well have been cryptic about 'five' as five may be the minimum number of one of his mechanisms that need to be mounted in a wheel to maintain a permanent imbalance. From Bessler's textual clues, my reasoning, without cryptic decryption but a lot of engineering theory and practical experience, is that to function, each mechanism can only ever be in equilibrium or probably cause contact with the main frame during part of the rotational cycle to thereby transfer the weight forces to a greater arm of force (or lesser, believe it or not) and create the imbalance. At another point the mechanism moves the weight off the frame and the force effectively transfers back up to the suspension point. That's all speculation of course. Five is really irrelevant and if you and your accolytes can't see that yet, you have not done enough practical work on the subject.
There's them what talks, and them what dos!
Sorry to have got involved. I won't reply again.
@anon 17:49
DeleteFYI, the above commenter is Mikey Ned.
His latest video is youtube.com/watch?v=LFK9LtclnvI
Thanks anon, I thought he was the same guy as Anonymous16 August 2023 at 15:08. Now that I look at it they have different writing styles.
Deleteanon 20:26 wrote "I was disappointed with your first book because whilst it gave a good historical account, there was little real technical information of value."
DeleteActually John did an excellent job explaining the Savonius windmill to us. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with Bessler's wheels. If you want to see what the next level of technical research into those wheels looks like, you definitely need to read the Ken Behrendt book about them. It will completely change you view of the subject. Yes, Bessler left us a lot of clues as to how his wheels worked, but you have to know where they are and what they mean. Ken has found dozens of them and they all point to the particular wheel design that Bessler actually used. Check it out and I think you will not be disappointed. It took him about fifty years to obtain the info in his book and it's probably the most important book every written about Bessler's wheels (and the longest at about 800 pages!).
Oh no, Ken’s back again! I’ll repeat this once more and then delete any future references to his work. The clues are invisible unless you’ve been smoking a joint, spliff, bone, nail or a roach. The conclusions are based on these Rorschach inkblot images and are therefore utterly useless. His conclusions do not lead to a “simple wheel”, far from it.
DeleteJC
I do apologize for not commenting as much disciples would like me to but I have so many interviews to attend to. I have Joe rogan at 8 and the president at 12! Then every hour or so that I have free I would interview a MIB member , they are piling up in rows to question me but I have them all make an appointment I have to fit them in to my schedule just as I had to fit this comment's time in to my schedule in between "convince people of my non existent working wheel" and "talk as much sentences as i can without making any sense at all".
DeleteKen
@Ken Behrendt
DeleteYour blatant lies in your above comment are an example of the falsehoods throughout your book
Oh no! It looks like that troll is back and impersonating people here like Ken B. We don't need to go through that craziness again which caused John to shut down this blog a couple of years ago.
DeleteAs far as Ken B's book is concerned, whether his "previously undiscovered" clues are valid or not depends on whether they produce a working physical wheel or not. So far, no real wheel, but, to be honest, I did find his sim of the design he says they describe very interesting.
Everyone else is using designs with separated two weight mechanisms that have one weight being lifted by another dropping weight as a wheel turns. That simple approach hasn't worked in 300 years and never will, imo. In the Ken B wheel everything is interconnected and works as a whole as each of the weight takes its turn dropping and then being lifted. I've never seen such a design before and I've collected images of hundreds of them over the years. I wish him well with his approach despite the negativity of his detractors.
Look Ken says his wheel is derived from clues he’s found. But Bessler and Karl both said the design/concept was very simple and they were surprised that no one had ever found it before. Ken’s wheel is definitely not simple which is why no one has bothered to build it. Ok enough about Ken.
DeleteJC
Anonymous23 August 2023 at 17:56
DeleteSomeone is impersonating the troll ;) .
Or it could be Ken smoking that joint spliff bone nail roach that JC mentioned
DeleteLOL
Ken stop smokin that Mary Jane!!!
Delete@anon
DeleteMaybe he took Mikey Ned's advice and drank the beer too!
LOL LOL LOL
Wait...is someone impersonating LOL???
DeleteWithout ever showing us anything, JC keeps stating how obvious the clues he has found are and how they led him to B's secret wheel design. If that is the case, then what makes JC think he's the first one to ever notice those so obvious clues? Maybe thousands of others did in the last 300 years and nothing workable ever came from them when they actually built wheels based on them. Does anyone think B would have made it that easy to find his secret design like JC seems to think? Heck no! If B put any real clues in his drawings, he would have made them as difficult to locate and interpret as possible in order to protect his secret. I think they would only be obvious if B was personally pointing them out and explaining them. The possibility for that ended back in 1745.
DeleteMy apologies. When I said I’d only met a few people I wasn’t including the kind of random meetings that occur all the time. I have a faint recollection of our meeting in Leominster but it was probably 25 years ago and is lost in the midst of time ….and old age!
ReplyDeleteJC
BESSLER WHEEL SECRETS EXPOSED!!!
Delete(Complete list of videos by Mikey Ned)
1. Lessons not taught in school
https://youtube.com/watch?v=b-vr6J-Iynk
2. Rosetta Stone Guide to MT
https://youtube.com/watch?v=y1-7rYs1G7Y
3. Quite possibly the final countdown to discovery of the one way wheel
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8iGkMkttx6E
4. A New Hope
https://youtube.com/watch?v=LFK9LtclnvI