Wednesday 13 December 2023

Gravity is the Originator of Rotation in Bessler’s Wheel.

It still surprises me that some people dismiss the possibility of gravity being the chief originator of movement in Johann Bessler’s wheel. Gravity enables a Bessler-wheel to rotate by causing the weights to fall in a particular configuration.  One requirement is that the weights land in a way that generates a limited amount of rotation in the wheel.  The second requirement is that the weights can be lifted back to their pre-fall position in time to fall again, with a lot less energy than was generated by their fall.

Yes we are told that it’s impossible for two reasons.  One is that gravity is not a source of energy and therefore cannot be used to drive the wheel and secondly once the weights have fallen it would take extra energy to lift them back up again, there being less energy available.  But according to Bessler he was able to lift the weights back up using less energy than was produced by their fall.  This unused energy was available to accelerate the wheel a little, in the following rotation.

Gravity may not be defined as an energy source but it makes items of mass move downwards or fall and that is an action that we can make use of. The second requirement is necessary because without it there can be no continuous rotation. Just because we don’t know how to design a method that would allow the weights to lifted back up at a lesser cost in energy, does not mean it can’t be done.

Other energy sources have been proposed over many decades, but none can produce the same results as Bessler’s wheel did, and without revealing the source of the energy they used.

Bessler stated in Das Triumphirende…, “NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.”  So we can have no doubt that the weights are indeed the cause of the PM.  What is left?  Nothing but the force of gravity.

Bessler said he had solved that problem.  We believe he was genuine, therefore lifting the weights to the necessary height can be done for less cost in energy and we can find the way he did that too. I believe I know how it was done and soon I’ll know if I’m right and so will you.

JC

1. "The second requirement is that the weights can be lifted back to their pre-fall position in time to fall again, with a lot less energy than was generated by their fall."

That's sounds like what Ken B pushes but he would say that a weight only takes a little less energy from a wheel as it rises than it released to the wheel when it previously fell. Then what little energy is not taken from the wheel by each rising weight can build up in the wheel as each weight travels around it. It's that build up of energy in the wheel that speeds it up and can do outside work. Scientists say that's impossible if a weight rises through the same vertical distance that it falls through. But when I think about it this has to be how Bessler did it.
I'm sure his weights did not suddenly become lighter on the rising side or heavier on the falling side as some have thought or that the rise distance suddenly became less on the ascending side or more on the falling side.
I think the secret is in the difference in the speeds that weights fell and then rose up again. A faster falling weight will lose more gravitational potential energy per second than is gained by a slower rising weight. To find the secret of Bessler's pm wheels I think we need to be looking at the vertical speeds of the weights on both sides of an OOB wheel. I have yet to see anyone do that. What kind of mechanism can cause the weights to move at different vertical speeds on both sides of a wheel?

1. I do agree that if the weights fall faster on the descending side of a turning wheel than they rise on its ascending side, then the descending side weights must be losing more gpe per second than is being regained by the ascending side weights per second. I have no problem understanding that. But, if there was such a difference in their speeds wouldn't that have to result in the weights piling up at the bottom of a wheel? What am I missing here?

2. Anon 21:48 wrote: "But, if there was such a difference in their speeds wouldn't that have to result in the weights piling up at the bottom of a wheel?"

No. If the weights are fixed to the ends of levers and the levers are attached by pivots to symmetrical locations around the inside of wheel's drum, then one should always have the same number of levers and their weights on each side of the drum no matter how it is turned assuming that the number of levers is an even number. Although the weights cannot "pile up" at the bottom of the drum, the swinging of their levers could cause their CoG to move below the center of the axle and onto the drum's descending side. It would have to stay there while the drum rotated in order to have perpetual motion.

Any vertical speed differences between descending and ascending side weights has to be gotten by mostly adjusting the swinging actions of the levers on the ascending side of the drum.

2. I think these two most interesting quotes from AP should give you Bessler pm wheel reverse engineers much to think about:

"At present, as far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doing of these weights, alternatively gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I can’t put the matter more clearly."

and

"Wagner describes how he thinks my machine is constructed; he babbles about "excess weights" being snatched along, by means of "internal motive power", in a frequently-repeated cycle of up and down movements. According to him, Nature dictates that things gravitate downwards. But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards, and it is this that Wagner cannot force himself to accept. But, crazy Wagner, just note that that is indeed the case with my device. But if anyone should presume to say that my Wheel is definitely such-and-such without having seen it, he is a fool and a fantasizer of the first order. He deserves to have a donkey's tail affixed to his lying rump."

So Bessler tells us in these two quotes that the weights in his wheels at some time moved toward the center (or axle of the wheel?) and then suddenly rose up again (away from the center of the axle and toward the rim of the wheel?) "in a flash".

The question is what kind of design could do that without needing a conventional, as Wagner would call it, "internal motive power" to help?

1. It certainly sounds like an OOB wheel to me. But obviously it was a very unique OOB wheel. He suggests that the rapid rise of the weights was very important in some way (like maybe maintaining a wheel's OB?), but how to do that? I get the feeling that Bessler had a sort of "love / hate" relationship with Wagner. On the one hand, he admired Wagner's intelligence and math skills, but on the other hand he did not like Wagner insisting that his pm wheels had to just be a spring powered fakes. It would have been interesting if Bessler had offered to show Wagner the secret of his wheels, after the latter swore not to reveal its details, just to finally shut him up and maybe get him to publish a public apology to Bessler for having doubted him.

2. Anon 00:38 wrote:

"It would have been interesting if Bessler had offered to show Wagner the secret of his wheels..."

to which I respond with the following imaginary conversation between Bessler and Wagner that I call "Lunch with Bessler":

BESSLER: Thanks for accepting my second invitation to inspect my Merseburg wheel, Professor Wagner".

WAGNER: Why you persist, Herr Bessler, in trying to convince me that your fake pm wheel is real is beyond me. Sooner or later it will be proven to be a useless fake and you will be shown to be a sinful liar. I have no doubt about that. May God have mercy upon your soul.

BESSLER: Well, if you are so sure about that, then how about a little wager?

WAGNER: What kind of a wager? As a Christian, I must abstain from all forms of sinful gambling.

BESSLER: It's a simple wager. I will allow you, without charge, to tear away the cloth covering on my wheel so you can finally see its inner mechanisms. If, as you claim, it's just a lot of gears powered by wound up clock springs, then I will publish a public apology for trying to deceive people and confess that you finally exposed my wheel as a fraud. As punishment for my sins I will also have to immediately eat the contents in that bucket over there.

However, if it proves to be a genuine overbalanced pm wheel as I claim, then you must publish an apology to me for casting doubts upon my credibility and honesty and, most importantly, you must also swear to almighty God not to reveal what you see here today to anyone. As your punishment for having been wrong, you will have to immediately eat the contents in that bucket which I assure you is not poisoned.

WAGNER: Fine, Herr Bessler. Since there's no money involved and no one will be harmed, I accept your wager because I KNOW you must be a liar and a swindler. By the way, what's in that bucket?

BESSLER: It contains about four pounds of freshly dropped horse mature and it's still warm.

WAGNER: Fine, Herr Bessler! As you are swallowing it all down after losing our wager, I shall try not to laugh too loudly at your utter humiliation. Let's get started!

Wagner then approaches the 12 foot diameter Merseburg wheel and quickly tears away the linen cloth on one side of its drum.

WAGNER: Was zum Teufel!!! Mein Gott! There are NO gears or springs! Bessler was not lying...he DOES have a genuine overbalanced pm wheel! I was 100% WRONG!

BESSLER: Here is the bucket, Professor Wagner, and a large spoon.

Wagner begins putting spoonful after spoonful of the smelly, mushy, still warm horse mature into his mouth and forcing himself to swallow them. There is so much of it!

BESSLER: Here, good professor, is some salt to improve its flavor a little for you.

WAGNER: Choke! Gag! GULP! (Why was I so stupid as to accept this crazy wager?! Why was I so foolish to think I knew it all and was so certain that Bessler was lying without even looking inside of his wheel?) GULP! Gag! Choke! Ugh...the smell is so strong! I'm starting to get a little nauseous, Herr Bessler.

BESSLER: Here is a nice pitcher filled with fresh water to help you swallow it more easily, Professor Wagner. You still have more than half of it to go! When you are done, I will help you write your apology to me that you are going to publish this week in all of the newspapers of Saxony at your own expense.

3. Typo alert..."mature" should have been "manure".

4. Rotflmao! Omg! "Lunch with Bessler" is without a doubt the funniest thing I've ever seen on this blog. Shemp, I think you may have some serious competition here for being top comedian.

5. Very funny, anon 02:23. I think that's the conversation we all wish that Bessler had actually had with Wagner. I've heard the expression "eating crow" to describe when someone is proven wrong and must admit and accept that, but you've taken it to a whole new level!

6. You have a warped sense of humor, anon 02:23, but I have to admit your little fantasy play is funny. I wonder if Bessler had made such a wager with Wagner if he would have taken it? Maybe not if he knew in advance what was in that bucket!

3. it is basically possible to 'lift' a weight on the opposite side to the falling weight by a string/cord attached to a second(ary) lever (one per primary mechanism), connecting a weight near the circumference with the axle of the wheel. Such a secondary lever will not greatly influence the balance of the wheel, as its weight almost always keeps the same distance to the axle on either seide of the wheel, but its movement can be used as a counterweight to achieve the required motion of the primary mechanism. I guess the problem of drag/overhang of this secondary lever on the uppermost point of the turning wheel (the only time this weight influences the balance of the wheel) must be compensated with a spring. The near instantaneous lifting of a weight can be achieved at the lowest point of the rotation by using a 'movable' hinge of sorts. It's a bit complicated to describe, but I will try to come up with a model asap that will illustrate this idea, which is congruent to many of Bessler's statements/hints/drawings and the eyewitness accounts.
btw. this is my first comment here, though I have been following this blog for a long time and have spent a considerable time thinking and tinkering with the idea and the above is my conclusion from quite a few trials.

1. Welcome, anon 17:57, but please do consider signing future comments with some name so we will know who you are.

We love any photos or drawings anyone provides links to here. You can quickly upload images anonymously from your laptop to postimages.org and they will then give you the link to the image there than you can then put into your comment here. You can also put a time limit on how long their server will send out an image and you can also delete it at any time in which case anyone clicking on the images link here after it has been deleted will just get the "file not found" message from them.

Hoping to see more from you in the future.

Paul

2. Thank you Paul, for doing my job for me, you were very quick off the mark! Good advice and of course you’re welcome here, anon 17:57

JC

3. Thank you Paul and John for the warm welcome. It is one thing to have an idea in your head and then a completely different story as to how to communicate it in a comprehensive way - I'm sure John knows this very well. I wonder if drawings and descriptions would suffice, and I am also convinced that a physical model would instantly reveal any substance or flaws of the concept. Since I have some unfinished - yet somewhat wobbly - wheel standing around here, I will try to give it a renewed effort to patch it up and piece it together. Since I currently live in a remote place in a developing country, it is quite hard to get supplies, but hey, Bessler didn't have a Home Depot in the hood either... :). So please bear with me, I will publish what I have asap - useful or not. Though I think some aspects of my findings are rather fresh to the ongoing discussion here, and maybe someone may find something thereof usable and take it further. I am in the process of decluttering my life a bit and want to move on from the 'wheel madness' that has kept me quite busy for the past many years and robbed too much my precious sleep during countless nights of pondering :).

Michel

4. A lot of newbie pm wheel builders are delusional enough to think, owing to their mechanical genius, of course, that they will have something built and running in a matter of weeks...maybe a month if they run into a few difficulties along the way. About a half year of failures later, the ugly reality of the chase finally dawns on them.
Achieving pm in any form is like smacking one's head against a brick wall expecting the wall to break first! One needs to be lucky enough to find the one weak spot in that long wall and hope his skull stays intact long enough for him to smash through the wall. Bessler's skull came close to shattering many times, but he managed to hang in there until the wall finally cracked open for him. He was a very, very, VERY lucky man! Kind of like a guy who, playing only one random combination per drawing, won three major lottery jackpots in a row.

5. I'm thinking instead of just suggesting others upload some drawings for us to ponder, maybe I should set a good example by uploading one of my own? So far, I've only shown some clues I found in the Toys page because I'm mainly a clue analyzer and not a builder and probably never will be one. But, I do have an idea for a pm machine that looks to me like it could work. It's definitely not the design Bessler used, but some may find it of interest and even want to sim/build it. I'll try to make a quick paint drawing of it and link to it as soon as I can.

Paul

6. Here's what I came up with:

https://i.postimg.cc/9M0KpxYy/dual-cf-wheel-pm.jpg

It's either worth billions or is just another one of my unworkable designs to add to the dozens I've accumulated over the years. If you think it's unworkable then please do tell me why. I'm not offended by being proven wrong.

Paul

7. It might be worth billions, but why are you revealing it here? You should be showing it to a patent attorney.

8. Nice idea. 3 words, Conservation Of Energy.

9. Paul, the two disks won't spin, because the 8 weights don't shift their COG. You just introduce a second Vector (the centrifugal force), but the total weight on each of the 8 axles remains equal. If it actually worked, you could hang any 8 weights on a wheel/disk, give it an initial spin to shift the COG and it would then keep spinning forever.

10. Paul, please ignore the second part of my reasoning, as it is wrong. But for now I will stick to the first part...

11. @Paul
It's an interesting design and one I have not seen before.

I agree that the CF acting on the pendulums will cause them to all swing out as you show when the disc arms are made to rotate about the center motor. The question is whether or not that swinging, which will shift the CoG's of the pendulum weights away from under their generator shafts, will then cause those shafts to rotate so the generators can produce electrical power.

To tell you the truth, I don't know what would happen because I've never seen anyone suggest mechanics like this before. If the discs and shafts turn, then the lever weights would have to be constantly rising against gravity and that will require energy ultimately be supplied to them by the center motor. There might also be some gyroscopic forces present but I have no idea what they would be or how they would affect the design.

To minimize wasted power from the center motor, I'd get rid of the discs and just replace them with spokes which have one end attached to a hub fixed to a generator shaft and the other end holding a pivot for a pendulum arm. That will cut the air drag down as much as possible by letting the surrounding air more easily flow around the pendulums. Then once the arms are rotating around the center motor the amount of energy to maintain the motion of the arms, spokes, and pendulums will be minimized. IF the power from the generators exceeds what the center motor requires, then definitely you will have OU and the machine, aside from keeping itself in motion, will be able to power outside devices.

Imo, your design should be simmed, but it might be very difficult to do with wm2d because the design involves the rotation of parts in two different planes that are perpendicular to each other. One would have to be a real expert with that sim program to be able to accurately simulate your design using only two dimensions.

IF your design works, then the OU power output could be easily increased by just increasing the number of arms coming out from the center motor as well as the number of spokes at the end of each arm and the masses of the pendulum weights attached the ends of the spokes. You could also use a vertical stack of the arms which would form a long column-like structure.

Definitely an interesting design, Paul. Thanks for sharing it.

12. @anon 19:25
There's a problem with you analysis I think. In Paul's design the swung out lever weights are not traveling around in circles parallel to the floor in which case their gpe would remain constant. They are actually traveling around in circles perpendicular to the direction of Earth's gravity and the weights will lose gpe and regain it as they each one completes a full circular path. Maybe when they are losing gpe some of it is turned into rotational kinetic energy of a generator shaft?

13. There's a simple way to test this design without doing any complicated simming or building.

Just get a stick about 18 inches long and drill a hole through its exact center. Slip the shaft of a long screwdriver through the hole so the halves of the stick can swing freely around the shaft. Make sure its carefully balanced so the stick can be put at any angle without moving. Next, attach two small pendulum weights on short arms to nails put in the ends of the stick so they can swing freely around the nails.

Then use both of your arms to hold the screwdriver shaft at arms length and begin rotating your entire body to the left or right. If what Paul is saying could work does work, then the pendulum weights will swing away from you and you should see an imbalance that causes the stick to keep flipping end over end as long as you keep turning your body in either direction.

This simple test won't prove Paul's machine is OU, but it would prove if a new mechanical principle of some sort has been discovered.

14. https://postimg.cc/47xJcrMM

you can mount one disc with the pendulums to a cart and pull the cart in one direction for 2d & that result should be identical.

15. Anon 19:25 said "If PE can not be lost because inertia holds them out there will be no rotation of the disk and the generator shaft."

The 3D sim by Anon 22:23 shows the prediction of motion perfectly. Disk torque can only be generated when there is potential to lose PE in the spinning disk with pendulums. When pendulums stay out and away from vertical it is where they and the disk is force balanced, at that height from ground. i.e. the disk and pendulum system can not lose any PE, therefore there is no torque to turn the disk.

16. I hate to deliver bad news, but I decided to see if I could sim Paul's proposed CF principle. It was actually far easier than I thought. I pinned a large diameter wheel to the WM2D workspace background and to make the construction as easy as possible only attached two diametrically opposed pendulum weights to the wheel. To simulate CF working on each pendulum's weight I just applied a constant force to the center of each weight that always pointed horizontally to the left of the weight. Then I made a short gif of the sim running and uploaded it to here:

https://i.postimg.cc/T3XFHpjR/Pauls-CF-Principle.gif

As can be seen, the CoG of the two weights is pushed by the CF's to the left and stays there. Unfortunately, when I then released the wheel, it could not complete a full rotation because of the overbalance of the two pendulum weights. To my surprise all that the two weights did was oscillate about their stationary CF offset CoG as the wheel they were attached to tried to complete a full rotation.

Based on this sim, I doubt if Paul's "Dual CF Wheel PM Machine" would work as he imagined it would. But, I must also mention that the sim I made is only 2D and does not really have the wheel shown attached to an arm that is made to orbit about an outside motor. Maybe that would make some difference? WM2D has its limitations and it's always a good idea, if possible, to make sims using several different sim programs and compare their results.

17. Thanks to everyone who took the time to look at my design and comment on it especially if they also tried to sim it. I appreciate it.

It's starting to look like it's just another one of my no hope designs so I will deposit it into a new folder labeled "Non runners". I think I have other pm machine designs somewhere in various folders on my laptop, but I will have to hunt around to find them. If I can find them, then I'll extract the most interesting of them and give links to them in future blogs so others can comment on them.

Paul

4. Ken, your writing style is so obvious!

5. While the experts here debate mechanics and JC is busy off shopping for gifts, that English Christmas pudding batter he poured into a large pentagonal mold before he left to go northward has risen and is still cooling. It is loaded with all sorts of delicious pieces of fruits and nuts...mmm...
In only another two weeks or perhaps a little less JC will be serving it to us in gleaming silver bowls so we can finally feast upon his ultimate solution to Bessler's wheels.
Let us hope this pudding is as tasty and palatable as he has promised it will be. Also, let's hope he's flavored it with plenty of its most important ingredient...rum!

1. Lol! Yes, you will all be totally "stunned" come the new year. Not because your silver bowls will be filled with the "tasty pudding" of JC's "big reveal", but because they will contain nothing but hot air! As someone said here years ago when describing JC, "A leopard does not change its spots". Watch and see how right he was!

2. O ye of little faith! I think you will be proven 100% wrong anon 19:39 because this time we have a newly reformed, eager to share JC who is totally different from the old JC who kept playing hide and seek games with us for years. You'll see come the New Year!

6. John Collins wrote .. "... Gravity may not be defined as an energy source but it makes items of mass move downwards or fall and that is an action that we can make use of. The second requirement is necessary because without it there can be no continuous rotation. - - Just because we don’t know how to design a method that would allow the weights to lifted back up at a lesser cost in energy, does not mean it can’t be done. - -

Bessler stated in Das Triumphirende…, “NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.”

So we can have no doubt that the weights are indeed the cause of the PM. What is left? Nothing but the force of gravity.

Bessler said he had solved that problem. We believe he was genuine, therefore lifting the weights to the necessary height can be done for less cost in energy and we can find the way he did that too."

Hi John .. we, I amongst them, are stating the requirement for an Energy Source as viewed from the perspective of the Classical Physics Model - this 'world view of mechanics' requires an identifiable energy source to break the bonds of conservative gravity force (a constant vertical acceleration acting on mass) which otherwise thwarts our attempts at "keeping away from the center of gravity" as B. said was necessary to achieve a system net positive torque i.e. a runner ..

There can be no doubt at all that gravity was/is the 'enabler' that sets objects with mass in motion enabling transition to another location internally - B. tells us categorically it is so ..

"So we can have no doubt that the weights are indeed the cause of the PM. What is left? Nothing but the force of gravity."

What is left ? .. gravity is an indisputable input, and a given .. the other inescapable input, and a given, is inertia of mass .. if motion occurs then the two are entwined like faces of a spinning coin or partners in a waltz - if gravity acts always vertically, and is always conservative, then it would appear by reduction that system inertia is more lenient and the "quazi-pseudo" 'energy source' that lets the dance continue "indefinitely".. And that is "what's left ?" - in the context of your above commentary .. imo ..

-f

1. If the inertia of the weights is so important, then how do you explain a one way wheel starting up from a standstill when it's weights are not moving and have no inertia?

2. The one way wheels began to turn spontaneously as soon as Bessler released the brake. This fact is a vital effect if such a device is to turn continuously.

Inertia is present whether the wheel is rotating or at a standstill. It’s a property of mass by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

JC

3. Thanks fletch. I liked your description of the “dance” necessary in a PM machine, between gravity and inertia.

JC

4. Anons rhetorical question.

Bi-directional Kassel wheel : Moving the wheel on by hand slowly, in either direction, did not cause it to accelerate away and it stopped in its tracks. Giving it an above threshold input of momentum and inertia caused it to canter away.

s'Gravesande to Newton 1721 : "When I turned it but gently, it always stood still as soon as I took my hand away. But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go, it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity, after which it revolved at twenty-five or twenty-six times a minute."

5. All of the above is just a lot of technobabble to me that really tells me nothing. Also, anon 02:41 confused inertia with momentum and the weights in an stationary wheel will have inertia, but no momentum as far as the wheel is concerned.
B's wheels, if not hoaxed with a conventional power supply, had to have an energy source and it had to be the mass of its weights. If the weights were losing more gpe as they fell than they regained as they rose through the same vertical distance, then, in effect in a turning wheel, the weights were always in a state of free fall and constantly losing gpe even though they never hit the floor below a wheel.
A falling weight loses gpe, but gains ke and its mass does not change while that happens. The mass of the weight only decreases as it falls if the weight does some outside work like pushing air out of its way. For B's wheels, once they reached their terminal rotation speed, their weights were no longer losing mass (actually just a tiny amount continued to be lost to overcome air drag and bearing friction). However, if a wheel was suddenly connected by its axle to an outside machine and made it run, then the wheel's weights would again be losing some mass as the energy of that lost mass went into the outside machine to increase the energy of its working parts and make them run.
This I think is obvious and I think it must happen in any OOB wheel that stays out of balance as it runs. Find a design that does that and you will find B's design (assuming that there is only one design that does that which might not be the case).

6. @anon 07:30, you are comparing one way wheels, with the two way wheels. I stated in my response that I was talking about the one way wheels.

In fact the one way wheels started spontaneously, but in the two way wheels, when stationary, the two mechanisms were holding the wheel stationary until one mechanism overcame the other when given a push in one direction or the other.

This assumes two different mechanisms, one set for each direction.

JC

7. The fact that Bessler went to the trouble of building those two way wheels shows how desperate he was to convince people he had actually achieved pm so he could finally sell the invention. Each two way wheel had to contain TWO one way wheels side by side which meant double the work to build each one! An enormous amount of work all to be thrown away in minutes when he took an axe to the Kassel wheel. On the one hand he creates the most amazing invention in history, then on the other hand he becomes one of the most tragic figures in history.

8. What an amazing story to film, and an excellent part for some actor to portray.

JC

9. I believe I’ve mentioned this before, but, Bessler used gravity to spin his weights (aka the all seeing eye on the top in theToys page).

I believe when he says there’s more to mechanics than I’ve mentioned, he is referring to gyroscopic action. I also believe he used both forced precession to accelerate the wheel and to lightly lift the weights.

By rotating against the natural precession direction you generate torque which accelerates the wheel. By applying a minor amount of torque in the natural precession direction you easily raise the weight.

His principle piece comment regarding the central flywheel pice was “from which they (the weight) receive power and push”. They receive by falling faster than the central disc and spinning up and then push through forced precession (the dog crawls through the hoop as far as his chain will stretch and is rewarded with a stiff Paton the paws ( forced precession).

Even having these beliefs about how Bessler did it has not led yet to a practical design. Gyroscopic action is a tough beast to tame. Ask Eric Laithwaite and Fran McCabe. Bessler’s craftsmanship must truly have been phenomenal.

I’m contributing in the generous spirit which JC has shown all these long years regarding the Bessler mystery.

Happy Holidays to all.
Pius

10. How do you use gravity to make the weights inside of a wheel spin?!

11. Friction or cords. Cords are messy and would need to be rewound. I believe friction was used (scratching noises). The axle of the falling weight rubs the rim of the. fixed central flywheel.

Pius

7. JC said "What an amazing story to film, and an excellent part for some actor to portray." What story is this ? You do not mean the Bessler wheel with Bessler because that story is crazy, who would want to film that. Seriously.

1. Considering some of the total cr*p that has been made into movies, I think the Bessler story would make a very interesting historical movie. The problem is that I don't think anyone will invest in the film until we have a working wheel and are sure it's Bessler's. It would be cool if the movie could be made using actual working models of his wheels instead of just motor powered props.

8. Even if you or I should be successful in building a working wheel, how would we ever know if it was the same way Bessler build his? Who knows, there might be different ways to achieve the same result.

1. You would need to have a majority of B "experts" agree that a particular working wheel design was described by various clues in B's writings and drawings. The bigger that majority the better. But without having one of B's original wheels for comparison, there would always be some who doubted that working design was the same as B's and would use their doubts to justify their continuing search for "the" design B used. Maybe if the working design was around and being used for a few generations then, finally, everyone would say "Yeah, this has to be it...mystery solved". Unfortunately, we'll all be dead and buried by then.

I no longer worry about finding "the" solution, just "a" solution. There might actually be several different ways of getting pm. I've tried dozens of ways so far with no success. With each failure I become a little more pessimistic. Reality has a way overcoming one's wishful thinking and eventually catching up with all of us.

2. Even if JC's Christmas pudding big reveal turns out to be a working wheel, he's going to have an uphill battle to get it accepted as Bessler's wheel since everyone "knows" it had to have eight levers and not just five. JC is going to have to point out some really convincing clues to overcome that prejudice. As a result, I think 2024 is going to be a really interesting year around here.

3. Can you show us the proof for eight levers ?

4. Proof? That depends upon one's definition of the word "proof".

Assuming JC ever does show us any of his five lever clues, we'll see almost all dismiss them as delusional. But, that will not convince him in the slightest that they are. If all of the sims show his design is just another nonrunner and always will be one, that will also not convince him in the slightest that it is. He will continue on his merry five lever path until the day he finally drops always believing there's just one little extra change he has to make or clue he has to find to finally get "it". He's stuck in an approach rut from which he can never escape.

Back in 2019, IIRC, someone here made a ten year prediction that if this blog was still up and running in 2029, then we'd see JC still talking about five lever wheels and a different crop of visitors here telling him he's on the wrong path and needs to be working on an eight lever design if he wants to make any real progress. It's four years since that prediction and, so far, it's looking accurate!

In the bizarro world of Bessler pm wheel "research" one man's clues are to another man just delusions to be ignored and vice versa. It's been like this for three centuries so far...what makes anyone think things must magically change just because we see the subject being discussed on the internet now and we have sim programs to use? Where it's discussed and by whom it is discussed and simmed is actually totally irrelevant.

5. If John gets a five weight wheel or a sim of one running then I won't be dismissing his clues. I will want to see more of them.

9. Kassal wheel pieces finally found?

https://postimg.cc/qtW8d8GV

1. If it was not for the watermark of the image from dreamstime stock imagr webpage it could fool a fool .

2. Bessler aveva risolto anche l'ostacolo dei 5 meccanismi come potete vedere dalle figure in basso a sinistra modificando il pendolo la ruota funzionava anche con un numero pari di meccanismi, in questo caso per evitare sbilanciamenti i meccanismi dovevano restare esattamente contrapposti.
Giuseppe Pelotti

3. Bessler had also solved the obstacle of the 5 mechanisms as you can see from the figures at the bottom left by modifying the pendulum the wheel also worked with an even number of mechanisms, in this case to avoid imbalances the mechanisms had to remain exactly opposite.
Giuseppe Pelotti