## Sunday 24 September 2023

### Another Step Forward.

I’ve posted a new blog at www.gravitywheel.com.  There’s an old picture of a failed design based on my favourite configuration of five equal compartments!  But I’ve included a couple of   clues I haven’t shared before; the “hidden in plain sight” variety.  There are plenty more of those to come so stick around you might be surprised.

JC

1. Finally something new from you!

But, there's some problems with your analysis of that Merseburg wheel drawing from DT. I carefully measured the angles and got the angle between the green and purple lines as 20 degrees and the angle between the yellow and green lines as 16 degrees. Like two angles of 18 degrees, they add up to 36 degrees, but those two angles are definitely not equal. Maybe that is due to misalignments in the lines you drew?

I like your new wheel, but having to have a lever swing through 90 degrees as its pivot reaches almost 6 o'clock during clockwise wheel rotation seems extreme to me. Yes, that will immediately throw its end weight over to the right and descending side of the wheel, but, IIRC, you said that lever would be connected to and pulling the weight on the next leading lever on the wheel's left ascending side over to the right. That action should then pull the center of gravity of both levers' weights over to the right descending side. The question is will that create enough imbalance to turn the wheel enough for the pivot of the lever lagging the one at 6 o'clock to then also almost reach the 6 o'clock position? If not, then the action involving the first two weights will not be repeated. You may be forced to greatly reduce that 90 degree swing angle. That, unfortunately, will also reduce your wheel's torque.

This new design definitely needs to be simmed and I'm sure that will happen as we see you start to add the five levers, their weights, and whatever stops your design uses. If it's going to work, I think it's going to involve some very precise connection between any two adjacent levers.

Good luck with it!

1. Thanks for the comments guys. I know the angles are badly drawn but I did it in paint, plus the print is slightly distorted. I tried to straighten it but it’s not perfect nevertheless I am certain that the reading is correct.

JC

2. @JC
I went over that line analysis you did of the DT drawing on your other blog and I think you've misplaced most of the lines in it! I don't get the purple, green, and yellow lines neatly converging on that outer blue circle like you do. Are you sure you're not unconsciously misplacing the lines so they fit in with your pet theory about Bessler using five levers in his wheels? Here's a link to the MS Paint drawing I came up with:

https://postimg.cc/LY0swGCc

3. There are two types of clues, imo. The gross and easy to find ones and the finer and more difficult to find ones. Almost everyone will agree on the gross ones because Bessler clearly mentions in his books what they are or we learn them from the letters that mentions his wheels. The finer clues however are vague and some will agree with them while others will disagree with them. You only know if a finer clue is a genuine clue AFTER you build something based on it that works. So I'm less interested in what JC claims are finer clues at this time and more interested in seeing the design he says they add up to. If that design does not work then his clues were only imaginary or they were real, but he misinterpreted them.

https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aq08rQjoyqmb31-YeQIL3s49FukD?e=zd7Omp

JC

5. Alternatively read my blog here.
https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/search?q=Pentagon+

JC

6. So Bessler provided two diameter lines so we have two ways of finding the pentagon and in each version the hatching lines align.

JzC

7. John, I took that drawing you provided the extra link to at 07:01 and tried to see if I could duplicate your version. I couldn't. You added little red horizontal bars on the tops of those two upright pieces labeled 12, but if you just use the little black horizontal bars that Bessler put in the drawing, then the purple and red lines don't come to a point on the larger blue circle surrounding the wheel's rim because the two lines are perfectly parallel to each other. It looks though like you can get those two lines to come to a point at various places on the large blue circle by carefully adjusting how wide you make the little red horizontal bars on the tops of the upright pieces. I didn't include the yellow line because I realized you can get it to cross the large blue circle practically anywhere depending on how you tilt it. I tried to make my drawing as accurate as possible by making my straight lines using the thinnest line MS Paint allows. I notice you seem fascinated by the cross hatch lines on the drum. I measured them to be inclined 30 degrees from the horizontal, but that can vary a little depending on how you draw your horizontal reference line. Here's the link to my MS Paint drawing:

https://postimg.cc/PPNt5b9m

8. I can see your point of view and I think the design is open to what you have suggested, that the lines can be viewed as parallel or different to my interpretation. This possibility occurred to me a long time ago but I felt that despite your excellent analysis, my interpretation is what Bessler intended.

The presence of Euclid’s way of describing a pentagram implies it was intended to produce that geometric figure.

The presence of the hatch markings aligning with both ends of the pentagram also implies that is also correct.

The presence of the two datum points on either side of the main support suggested that the wheel as drawn needed to be enlarged. This was supported by the subsequent inclusion of the padlock, the right end of the ‘T’ pendulum and both the bottom and right edges of the drawing.

Bessler frequently included more than one way of obtaining the correct answer, that in my opinion was why he included the two datum points that you have identified as incorrect.

So don’t forget that this drawing was produced from a wood block printing system; it had to carved as a mirror image before ink was applied to its surface and paper pressed on to it. I think that clues were good as long as you consider them as a whole - what was the inventor trying to convey? Information about his work. His use of the two datum points you have discussed were indeed open to manipulation such as you believe I have done, but if these two points were not placed there for the reasons I have suggested, then for what other reason might they have been included?

Interesting discussion and I’m open to any other ideas you might wish to put forward.

JC

9. I think John is actually following Einstein's shrewd advice which was "When the facts don't support your theory...change your facts!" Lol!

10. My explanation is correct as was Einstein’s. “He believed that a certain kind of mathematical beauty and simplicity is a hallmark of scientific truth and that, in some circumstances, this criterion trumps strict concordance with measurements, which are in any case always subject to error and re-interpretation.”

JC

11. For those who still cannot accept JC's concept of a five lever B wheel, stare at this animation for several minutes per day for the next week. It will help you to finally see the pentagrams in B's wheels!

https://i.giphy.com/media/3o7WTvYuA6dWkiRSda/giphy.webp

12. Anon 19:52 above wrote "Finally something new from you!"

New? Exactly what is "new" from JC here other than him admitting he's distorting the Bessler drawings to justify his pentagon obsession? All I've seen so far is a photo of a years old failed wheel of his and another showing what he claims is a new empty wheel disc with a pentagon drawn on it both placed on yet another blog along with some babble about finding a pentagram inside a circle which he took from Euclid. But, then he promises to again show us more "ASAP" which is just another way of saying someday in the future...maybe. I predict that this is all we will see from him for the rest of this year. Nothing really changes around here and never will. We never will see any kind of clear drawing or photo of his latest wheel and its levers because he'll always be in the "early stages" of its build and won't want to "get ahead of it". In the unlikely chance that he actually does show us anything maybe next year, you can bet that it will only be some design he's permanently abandoned because he knows for a fact it's a dead duck nonrunner. Mark my words on all of this.

13. John managed to measure an angle of 18 degrees between what he calls the "rope line" and the "padlock line" in that Merseburg drawing. Since all of the angles in a pentagram are multiples of 18 degrees, he immediately claims it was Bessler's "intention" to hide a pentagram inside of the Merseburg wheel drum drawing and, obviously (but only to John!) that PROVES that Bessler's wheels used five levers!
He'd agree with John that 18 degree angle indicates a hidden pentagram, BUT then he would say that a pentagram has five points and is made up from five lines. If you multiple those two numbers you get twenty-five and the twentieth-fifth letter of the alphabet is Y. This therefore PROVES that Bessler used special Y shaped levers in his wheels and they are shaped to only work with a wheel using EIGHT levers whose pivots form a perfect octagon inside of the drum. SoS even knows where those pivots are located! You just multiply Bessler's "Lucky Ratio" (found by SoS years ago) which was 0.777777 times the radius of a wheel to find out where the pivots were located. For the twelve foot Merseburg wheel whose radius was six feet or seventy-two inches, the pivots were located exactly fifty-six inches from the center of the axle.
So, John's finding of the pentagram, when looked at numerologically, actually PROVES that Bessler used an octagonal arrangement of levers inside his wheel drums and NOT a pentagonal arrangement!

14. Amazing how many here know what Bessler's true intentions were!

15. @anon 18:25

You could also say that a pentagram or five point star consists of five letter V's attached to the corners of a central pentagon. Bessler liked to use the letter V as the Roman numeral for 5 so you could then add up the total number of letter V's in a pentagram and get V + V + V + V + V = 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 25 which again fits in with John's pentagram really meaning the 25th letter of the alphabet and telling us Bessler's levers were shaped like the letter Y. Something tells me John is not going to like this alternative interpretation of that Merseburg wheel pentagram he found!

16. Oh I get it now. Whenever JC is talking about pentagons and pentagrams he's really unknowingly talking about octagons and Y shape levers! Wow what a revelation and if that's the case then he needs to stop chasing five lever wheel designs asap and start building octagon wheels with Y shape levers. Thank goodness you guys pointed this all out to him before he ruined another disc with a lot of holes drilled into the wrong places. Hopefully, he can scrub all of those lines he already drew on it so he can put fresh ones on it. With all of the inflation nowadays, pm wheel builders can't afford to waste materials chasing no hope designs like he was about to do.

17. I'm not a numerologist but here goes.
The sum of the inside angles of a pentagon is 540 degrees. The sum of the inside angles of an octagon is 1,080 degrees. That means that the sum of the inside angles of an octagon is exactly twice the sum of the inside angles of a pentagon. I'm sure Bessler would have noticed that coincidence that shows a connection between the two figures. If you add them you get 1620 degrees.
I looked up the year 1620 to see what notable events happened then. The two that stuck out the most to me were that the Mayflower left England for North America and Cornelius Drebble build the first navigable submarine in England which he used to take the king of England for a ride under the Thames River! Bessler had some sort of attachment to England and he probably knew the history of Drebble and wondered if he could also build a submarine and have it powered by his pm wheels.

18. If Bessler had ever built a submarine, it might have looked like this:

https://postimg.cc/xc3sNzKB

19. Nice drawing anon 23:51. It looks like it could work and is something Bessler might have dreamed up. Ballast weights would be added until the water just covered the top of the hull but not the top of the hatch. The sub would need a brake on the drive shaft axle and when it was released by the pilot and the back propeller started to turn the sub would take off. Adjusting the dive planes a few degrees downward would submerge the sub. One could use them to surface quickly but if they failed for some reason then the drive shaft would be braked and the sub would automatically rise to the surface again. It might be able to do 5 mph underwater and depending on how strong the hull was it might be able to dive down to 30 to 40 feet. Ropes going through holes drilled in a wooden hull to control the rudder and dive planes would be a problem because of the risk of outside water leaking in but there might be some simple way to solve that.

20. I would love to have something like that Bessler submarine. There's a large lake near my house and I could use it to explore the bottom of that lake. Ropes going through the hull is a bad idea. Instead use thin steel wires that pass through small diameter holes drilled into the hull. To keep outside water from leaking in you can use something called a "stuffing box". It's attached to the inside of the hull and the wires pass through it. But, the box is stuffed full and tight with greasy rags that form a waterproof barrier that still lets the wires slip back and forth through it. Also, nowadays we can skip the wooden hull and use something like plastic reinforced with fiberglass.

2. I studied the markings drawn on that new wheel disc on JC's other blog and came up with what I think is how the design he is going to build is supposed to work. In this quick sim I made, all parts are very light except the two large gray circular weights which I made several pounds each. That allows the CoG of just those two weights to be tracked as their levers swing around when the wheel rotates. The two levers are connected together by a piece of cord and there are no springs. The wheel is being forced to rotate CW by a motor at its center.
As can be seen the dropping of the weight of one lever does pull the weight of the lever ahead of it back toward the wheel's descending side. The result is to shoot the CoG of the two weights toward that side also.

https://postimg.cc/zVrqcgpn

So far this looks good, but it's only a partial sim. What is needed is a sim showing the motions of five identical levers to see if they can keep their CoG on the wheel's descending side at all times. It would be nice if the five weights could have their CoG located at one spot on the wheel's descending side to produce constant torque. But, that may not happen and the CoG will "wobble" or travel back and forth between two close positions to produce a varying torque. Which type of torque is not that important as long as it is always a CW torque. Unless it does that, the wheel will not be self-starting from any position.

1. Thank you for taking the trouble to make a sim based on what you saw on my new wheel disc. I appreciate the work you have done. There is a lot more I need to add before you will have something worthwhile to sim. The levers are more complex than you have assumed from my wheel configuration. Also the action you ascribed to my wheel is also wrong. I will reveal more ASAP but I’m still in the early stages of my build, and I don’t want to get ahead of it.

Thanks again,

JC

2. @John Good luck with your new build .

3. Nice sim anon 11:10. It's clean and simple and not loaded up with a lot of graphs that no one understands. I agree 100% with you that you can't tell what a build will do based on what a sim of only a few of its mechs does. You need a complete wheel. My only recommendation to JC is that he have his mechs shifting a lot earlier than 5 pm on his wheel's descending side. He has to keep the weights cog on the wheel's descending side at all times so it can be self starting from any position like you said.

3. Is this the secret of it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaMdiz2e-6k&t=26s&pp=ygUtUGVycGV0dWFsIE1vdGlvbiBHZW5lcmF0b3I6IEhPVyBET0VTIElUIFdPUks_

1. Its so simple and free power from it.

2. @anon 16:14
If you had watched the whole video you would have seen where at the end he tells you it's hoaxed. There were small wires supplying power to the "generator" which was actually a motor that drove the Bhaskara style "pm" wheel and was not being driven by that wheel. That failed design was invented almost a millennium before Bessler and its still being built nowadays by newbies who refuse to believe it doesn't work.

4. I like the music

https://youtu.be/u3LozLBAvbc

1. It's music is Mozart's famous Horn concerto No. 4 in E flat-major completed in 1786. It has a lively allegro tempo and I often listen to it to lift my spirit after a failed wheel test. As for that Russian pm wheel the question is does that little motor deflecting its weights use less energy then the overbalanced wheel outputs? If so, then he has a working pm wheel!

2. After one of my builds fails I also boost my spirit...not with music but with something that comes in a tinted bottle!

3. Purely medicinal of course!

JC

5. Our SG (formerly this blog's "Top Guru") has recently been posting away over on bwf trying to lure members there into a private Bigscreen VR "room" that he has set up so he can, finally, reveal the secret of Bessler's wheels to them. Sounds good, but we've seen this performance of his several times before on this blog. Unfortunately for him, most of the older members on bwf will have little knowledge of how this new VR technology works and even less motivation to learn it and then make the financial investment to use it which requires purchasing a special VR headset, controllers, etc. For those who want to know more about that "room" what SG is talking about, see this youtube tutorial video on the Bigscreen VR technology: