Looking back I see I wrote something along the lines of this post back in 2009, 2012, 2019 and 2022! Why am I so hooked on making working models, after all a working model can be simmed and will be if one ever materialises?
But a suggestion on the Bessler wheel forum yesterday prompted me to re-examine my model and I saw a simple but crucial error that I might have missed on a sim.
Anthony (a newbie) has this signature “it’s not where you see the weights on the wheel that matters, its where the wheel (FEELS) the weights thats important”. Now that is a fact I learned so long ago that I almost forgot how important it is.
Imagine you place pendulum on a wheel with its pivot just below the axle, so the weight hangs downwards. If you rotate the wheel a few degrees clockwise, the pendulum rotates anti-clockwise relative to the wheel. The pivot bears the weight of the pendulum and as long as the pendulum moves relative to the wheel, the weight is pulling down on the pivot.
But if you place a stop in the path of the pendulum forcing it to stop and remain motionless, the weight is no longer felt on the pivot, but rather where the weight actually is, resting against the stop.
As soon as the pendulum is free to move again the weight is again felt at the pivot.
The error I found was a simple mistake. A supporting rod I had fitted into the mechanism was too short, meaning the part it was supporting did not have its pivot close enough to the axle to gain a big enough advantage? Unless you keep the fact mentioned in Antony’s signature in mind you might not even realise you’ve overlooked it. Like I did!
Actually I didn’t forget about it, but I was so intent on correcting what I saw as an unnecessarily long lever in a drawing, I shortened it too much.
JC
"...the weight is no longer felt on the pivot, but rather where the weight actually is, resting against the stop."
ReplyDeleteIt really does not matter where the stops are placed inside a pm wheel. A stop can be in direct contact with and supporting a weight or it can be closer to the axle and supporting the lever to whose end the weight is attached. What matters is the location of the weight itself. Try not to be misled by the locations of pivots and stops. It's only the locations of the weights that count.
Everybody knows this. If the pendulum is hanging so that it's COM is vertically beneath the pivot and it is free to move the weight is felt by the wheel at the pivot point as though the weight were there. As soon as the pendulum is resting on a stop or locked to the wheel the weight is felt where it is located.
ReplyDeleteThe locations of the weights, or where they’re felt don’t matter. The only thing that matters is that nothing was seen of the prime mover either in the demonstrations or the drawings. It was easy to hide the prime mover in the drawings. What prime mover would have been invisible at the demonstrations?
ReplyDelete"What prime mover would have been invisible at the demonstrations?"
DeleteAnthony & JC are talking about pivoted levers with weights inside a wheel and where the weight is felt if hanging verses locked. A Prime Mover structure is a different matter & it is hidden inside the covered interior of the wheel obviously. And it went around with the wheel because Bessler said everything must go around with the wheel and nothing hangs from the axle.
I think many are totally confused about Bessler's use of the term "prime mover". It is not what they imagine it to mean which is not surprising considering how confusing Bessler's words or the translations we have of them can be. Bessler uses the term as an alternative description of his pm wheels and nothing more. It is not some mysterious extra machine that must be attached to his wheels to make them run. It is the entire wheel ITSELF.
Delete"Prime mover" means something that moves without itself needing to be moved. It is motion without cause. Bessler did not know how that could happen and many today still do not know. All that most pm chasers know or think they know is that if they can come up with an overbalanced wheel design that stays overbalanced as it rotates, then they will have the problem solved. Far, far easier said than done, of course, as millions of man-hours of labor have proven.
All motions of objects in our one and only universe must have a cause. Maybe the ONLY exception is the entire infinite universe itself. It is simultaneously its own cause and effect at all times from the infinite past to the present moment to the infinite future. Can you accept that? No? Then don't worry about it because I certainly won't.
So take a nap, eat some grub, and get back to work on your wheel. It's later than you think and you won't live forever. Even after you are gone, you will still technically be in our universe, but unfortunately not in a form that can work on pm wheels. Even a day came along when Bessler was not able to watch another sunrise...or work on another wheel.
Here are 2 translations of MT15 years apart where it is the only time Bessler in writing uses the noun (naming word) "prime mover". It is not an adjective for the whole wheel because he says the overbalance is shown but not the source that causes the overbalance or superior weight configuration.
DeleteNo. 15 This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.
2007 No. 15. This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance.
Easily sorted. Old German has grammar similar to English. Unlike Latin with the verb at the end of the sentence. Ask Ai to give a breakdown of the meaning of prime mover in the flow and context of how the sentences are structured.
DeleteAll I see in those varying translations of Bessler's note for MT15 is that he's telling us that its internal mechanical arrangement is not the same as that used in his actual "prime mover" or working wheel. I think many get misled by the word "source" in the note. Maybe it would have been better translated as "necessary mechanical arrangement" (to achieve a prime mover). I do not interpret the note as meaning that he could just add some extra pm mechanics to it to turn it into a prime mover. Making the assumption that could be done is, imo, a false assumption to make.
DeleteOriginal essence (from Bessler’s MT note)
DeleteChatGPT says : The German text (paraphrased) says roughly:
“This ratchet wheel derives from the previous model, except that the levers (or ‘tensioners’) are somewhat longer and have a special additional weight at the outer ends. From the drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover’s nature can be seen or deduced, even though the figure shows an overbalance.”
Meaning : “nothing of the prime mover’s source can be seen or deduced” , a disclaimer by Bessler that the true motive principle isn’t visible in this sketch.
CHATGPT : Interpretation
Bessler is saying:
MT15 builds on MT14, with longer lever arms and extra outer weights.
The design appears overbalanced — i.e., heavier on one side.
But the true mechanism (the “prime mover”) is not visible or revealed in this diagram.
This was typical of Bessler’s cryptic notes — he wanted to hint at motion from imbalance while hiding the actual mechanism that maintained continuous rotation.
Riddle Me This : shows the overbalance , other application is present , different additional structures needed.
DeleteDigital Copy .. No. 44 The sphere-method is reintroduced here. The problem shows 2 wheels: A is the main wheel, the axle of which has a gear at B. B drives the somewhat larger wheel C at point D. At side E are spheres which fall out of side G at point H below and into wheel C at point I and then out of C again into A at point F. This problem looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as NO OTHER application is present, for the wheel A must revolve several times before C revolves a single time. Thus not enough spheres move from the former into the latter.
Hard Copy .. No. 44. Here the spherical weight method is reintroduced. The illustration shows 2 wheels. A is the main wheel, and its axle has a cog B. B drives the slightly larger wheel C at point D. In the latter wheel, C, at side E, are rounded weights which have fallen out of side G at point H, below, and enter wheel C , at point I, and they are then put back into the wheel, A, at F. This proposed model looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as NOTHING ELSE is applied: for, the wheel A, must rotate several times before C revolves a single time. Thus not enough spheres move from the latter to the former.
Digital Copy .. No. 48 This is a sphere invention having a paternoster with pockets. A is a wheel. As the pocket-paternoster C raises the spheres, it passes over B, the axle of the wheel. At D the spheres are ejected into a channel. At E the spheres fall into the wheel, and at F they are ejected again into the paternoster. Here, an insufficient number of spheres is carried to the wheel A by means of the paternoster. The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely DIFFERENT, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES have been provided.
Hard Copy .. No. 48. This is a round-weight invention, with a bucket conveyor. A, is a wheel of whose axle B, the bucket conveyor C. Passes as it raises the balls, and ejects them into a chute at D. At E the balls fall onto the wheel, which ejects them back into the bucket conveyor at F. Not enough balls are supplied by the bucket conveyor in this invention. The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STRUCTURES bless this marriage.
@anon 08:33
DeleteIn those cases, I would agree that the mention of "different additional structures" does refer to something that must be introduced to make one of those ball exchange type machines work. But, that additional structure would just be one of Bessler's working pm wheels or his "prime movers". Heck, you could take ANY piece of non pm machinery and make it run like a pm machine by connecting it mechanically to the axle of one of his pm wheels. I agree with anon 07:18 that when Bessler mentions "prime mover", he is referring only to his working pm wheels. Also, when he mentions needing "different additional structures" he's basically saying the same thing. Whatever machine he is criticizing lacks the same mechs found in his working pm wheels so it cannot work to produce pm.
One has to be careful that he does not read into Bessler's often vague language concepts that aren't really there. I've often wondered if he wrote like that on purpose or if that just happened to be his style. Whatever because it was quite effective. Here we are three centuries later tying ourselves into knots trying to figure out what he meant by various sentences from his books and having to do it using translations that may or may not be accurate (although I do think they are mostly accurate).
No, you are not being consistent. MT's 44 & 48 are proven ball exchange type non-runners. They would have continued overbalance torque IF the ball delivery rate could keep up, but they can't without some additional energy input. In plain language he says additional structures (other applications) must be added/present to achieve this. B shows the resetting overbalance to give the torque ! MT15 also shows the resetting overbalance, but not how the resetting of overbalance and lifting of weights is physically achieved ( the missing additional mechanism ). Like MT's 44 & 48 this requires additional structures (other application) to be fitted, though it shows an idealized overbalance or superior weight configuration that resets to provide replenishable torque. Anyone and everyone would agree that a B runner bolted to any non-runner would still be a runner. But that is not what B is saying in the MT notes. He is saying many overbalancing non-runners of various types can be a runners if a special additional mechanism is added. Referred to as additional structures and other application for the ball transfer type devices, and prime mover "structure" for weight lifting MT15. He also says in AP that he has wheels with and without weights. They all operate on the same additional resetting overbalance device aka the prime mover. It is not strapping on a complete B runner and calling it the prime mover or additional structure. It is only the one-device that physically assists the non-runner overbalancing torque system part of a wheel to reset its PE and positioning to become an accelerating self-moving runner.
DeleteAnon 15:55 is cherry picking because he can not accept an additional first mover mechanism is required in all runners and it is that which makes them special.
DeleteIn order for any ball exchange type pm wheel to work and continuously power some outside attached machine, the amount of descending ball mass in it must exceed the amount of ball rising mass. In most of the versions I've seen, these machines are designed so that the amounts of mass descending and rising are always equal. But, that won't lead to pm unless one has a machine that has zero friction in it and, even if it did which is impossible in the real world, the device wouldn't be able to power an attached external machine for long (unless, however, that outside machine also had zero friction!). It could only do so until all of the moving balls inside of it came to a stop. There is no "additional structures" that will change that reality. Again in MT15 he tells us that the system is overbalanced, but it won't be able to stay that way because it lacks the correct mechanics (which were only found in his working pm wheels or "prime movers") to do so. He is not talking about adding some magical "prime mover" to MT15 to achieve that. He is just telling us that MT15 doesn't have the same mechanics as his working pm wheels.
DeleteYes, in AP Bessler does write "I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with weights, others without." He doesn't, however, say they were working pm machines. Many believe he was referring to the collection of drawings he was making up for his eventually to be published MT. Most likely he did not personally construct most of the machines shown in MT. They were just concept designs which he already knew would be useless for pm. I think he intended to use MT as a text for students so they would learn what works and does not work when it comes to constructing pm machines. Unfortunately, the drawings at the end which showed what did work and was used inside of his working pm wheels was removed and destroyed. Most likely his "big reveal" only consisted of maybe four pages of drawings.
I think you would be better off not thinking about magical "prime movers" that could be added to any machine to make it into a pm runner and instead focus on what was actually going on inside of the wheels he had which were actual pm runners. In other words, what was in those last MT drawings that he removed and destroyed! Once we have that, we will be able to make any outside machine run like pm by attaching it to the working pm wheel we do have. Most importantly, we won't have to make any changes to the internal parts of that outside machine.
Elevator machines like MT48 and ball exchange machines like MT44 will and can work as they are. They can be temporary runners that run for a short period of time only. If you remember "uncles toy" from many years ago it was a vertical spiral ramp arrangement where a marble rolled down the spiral ramp upon release. Exiting the spiral ramp at the bottom it hit a paddle wheel which moved an elevator upwards carrying a new marble from a collection point upwards to near the top of the spiral ramp to go again. BUT , as with all non-true runners it could not keep up the marble delivery replacement rate because the vertical distances were the same and there was ordinary dissipative energy losses like frictions, heat, and sound etc (it is well known, & you mention that) that always make them under unity. Many believed that it was the real OU deal. The only way it could work for a while was to have the elevator uplifted marble deposited in an upper hopper with other marbles in waiting. IOW's the gearing was less than 1 to 1 . BUT , the hopper marbles would be used up in a short order requiring it to be filled again by hand i.e. manually had its PE restored. B's. MT48 didn't have an upper hopper but has a loaded cross feed ramp which has the same purpose as a marble hopper storage device. So "additional structures" is not another PE storage device because it already has one in plain sight. It is a mechanical structure or application that gives the system an extra boost of speed aka KE energy dispenser device to reduce the work required for the OOB system to keep up the replacement rate to 1 to 1 (even when doing external work tasks). And it's not "magical" , it's just Classical Physics of applying forces and breaking the usual stalemate of equilibrium of forces within the runner wheel. And that was what the last removed pages of MT were about (& the toys page), how to make that structure and apply its forces to various temporary OOB wheel types to make it into a true-runner.
DeleteWe really have no idea of what those missing drawings from MT contained. You're just guessing and your guess is as good (or bad) as anyone else's guess.
DeleteHowever, there might be a way to make a ball circulating type machine or "uncle's toy" work with some additional structures. Just figure out a way to make the descending balls heavier than the ascending ones! If steel ball bearings are used, then placing a magnet at the bottom of the descending column of balls would slightly increase the weight of that column while putting a magnet at the top of the ascending column of balls would slightly decrease the weight of that column. If it's done just right, it might lead to continuous motion of the steel ball bearing. Here's a quick sketch showing the setup:
https://i.postimg.cc/htZ6kFJ9/mag-ball-circ.jpg
Hmm...I'm wondering if this could be done with the steel ball bearings attached to the rim of a wheel? That would eliminate the need for the columns crammed with balls.
You forgot to consider the reason magnet augmented machines like your design never work. If the magnetic attraction force is strong enough to move a steel ball towards the permanent magnet source then the permanent magnet won't let the steel ball go as the separation distance closes. Attraction force inverse square of the separation distance. If you use switch on/off electromagnets then all you have to do is power the electromagnets with your proxy wheel turning a generator to supply the current lol.
DeleteYeah those magnet machines never work which I learned the hard way. To make one work you would have to also figure out a way that the magnets and anything they attract will require less energy to pull apart than they released when they came together. Good luck finding some way to do that. I never did. Gravity only machines have the same problem. We can't cut off magnetic or gravity fields to make them directional. I don't think Bessler found out some way to do that though. He had some other trick for making the weights heavier on his wheels' descending sides than they were on their ascending sides. Any ideas?
Delete"He had some other trick for making the weights heavier on his wheels' descending sides than they were on their ascending sides. Any ideas?"
DeleteHe could no more change a weights mass than we can. That WOULD be magical. I already said imo he gave the weights a boost in KE aka energy input to assist them reach their recovery height and position for replenished OOB torque. And this "assist" came from the prime mover apparatus, the same apparatus or application that assists MT's 44, 48, and 15 that we have been discussing. And that the toys page was substituted for the removed pages probably showing the special mechanism. And the toys page is in my opinion mainly about demonstrating push and pull forces dressed up in mechanical disguises.
"He could no more change a weights mass than we can. That WOULD be magical."
DeleteThere is a method to do that, sort of, that was proposed by Ken B years ago. What he claimed is that Bessler didn't make the weights heavier on the descending side of his wheels, but found a way to make those descending side weights lose a little more gravitational potential energy per second of wheel rotation than was being regained by the ascending side weights. That only made the descending side weights behave like they were more massive although they really weren't.
This required connecting the weighted levers to each other with ropes (the "connectedness principle"?) so that the descending side weights sped up a little bit as they dropped while the ascending side weights slowed down a little bit as they rose. That then caused all of the weights to constantly lose small amounts of gravitational potential energy as a wheel rotated and turned it into increased rotational kinetic energy that accelerated the wheel up to a certain maximum rate. At that rate centrifugal forces acting on the weights interfered with the shifting of the levers making the rates of loss and gain of gravitational potential energy equal on both sides of a wheel.
What makes this sound impossible is that we've all been taught that if the weights in a wheel fall and rise through the same vertical distance as a wheel turns which they must do in all wheels, then no energy can be gotten from the wheel. But, maybe that is wrong? I can't think of any other way Bessler's wheels could have worked.
Oh, also Ken B claims that all of the energy coming out of one of Bessler's wheels had to be "paid for" by a steady, but very gradual loss of mass of the atoms in a wheel's lead weights. This loss of mass did not involve any kind of nuclear reactions. It was just a slow loss of mass. No one back in Bessler's days would have noticed it though because even if his Merseburg wheel was used to lift loads of bricks for an entire century, someone putting one of the wheel's four pound weights on a balance at the end of that century wouldn't have been able to notice its small decreased weight because of the crude balances they had back then. This effect is due to that Einstein E=mc^2 equation which tells us that huge changes in energy can come from very small changes in mass.
The prime mover couldn't have been another mechanism, structure, or apparatus to assist an overbalancing scheme. Simple machines can't assist other simple machines and transform both simple machines into perpetual motion. That's impossible. Back to the drawing board.
DeleteAnon 14:20 "The prime mover couldn't have been another mechanism, structure, or apparatus to assist an overbalancing scheme.
DeleteSimple machines can't assist other simple machines and transform both simple machines into perpetual motion. That's impossible. Back to the drawing board."
See Anon 20 Oct 8:24 re MT15 comments
ChatGPT says : The German text (paraphrased) says roughly:
“This ratchet wheel derives from the previous model, except that the levers (or ‘tensioners’) are somewhat longer and have a special additional weight at the outer ends. From the drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover’s ( noun ) NATURE can be seen or deduced, even though the figure shows an OVERBALANCE.”
Meaning : “nothing of the prime mover’s source can be seen or deduced” , a disclaimer by Bessler that the TRUE MOTIVE PRINCIPLE isn’t visible in this sketch.
CHATGPT : Interpretation , Bessler is saying:
MT15 builds on MT14, with longer lever arms and extra outer weights.
The design appears overbalanced — i.e., heavier on one side.
But the TRUE MECHANISM (the “prime mover”) is not visible or revealed in this diagram.
This was typical of Bessler’s cryptic notes — he wanted to hint at MOTION FROM IMBALANCE while hiding the ACTUAL MECHANISM that MAINTAINED CONTINUOUS ROTATION.
You’re assuming ‘mechanism’ in that interpretation refers to a simple machine. It could, and probably does refer to a process. “
Deletea natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.“
The logic is B had a hidden mechanism that he did not disclose. This was an additional internal mechanical application whose sole purpose was to support the PE restitution of the disclosed closed-loop overbalancing weights. Their choreographed actions gave the wheel continuous torque and rotation. The Franken-machine dutifully sprang into life and was nothing more, or less, than a clever partnership of all ready known Classical Mechanics and Physics.
Deleteall ready already nice pun lol
DeleteTo restitute PE of OB weights requires a form of energy transfer. The internal energy is conserved, it can't be increased. Whatever additional internal mechanical application he used had to transfer energy from an external source. The invisible prime mover.
DeleteYou keep pushing your prime mover nonsense. Now it's invisible! I agree with those that say when Bessler uses the term "prime mover" he is just using it as another name for one of his pm wheels. When he says "nothing can be seen of the prime mover's source" he is just saying some wheel design in MT cannot produce pm because it does contain the same mechanics that were present in one of Bessler's working pm wheels.
DeleteYes the prime mover is invisible. It isn’t in any of the drawings. None of the witnesses could see it. Something invisible was lifting the weights in his wheels. “Mechanics” aren’t prime movers. Physics 101. Keep working at it, it will come to you soon.
DeleteThe problem with fabricating is that it is painfully slooooooow..... A pm chaser can spend weeks making some little tweak to all of the mechs in his wheel only to eventually (more like inevitably!) discover that it was just another waste of his time and effort and, worst of all, his emotions. With simming he could have found that out in minutes and then made his plans to move onto something else. Imo, it's best to sim first and then, IF it's a runner or even looks like it's a runner, start fabricating it. If one only has a one in a million chance of finding a runner which approach increases his probability of finding it more? Completing the fabrication of, say, a hundred physical wheels in a lifetime or simming thousands of wheels in his lifetime? After one has a working sim, he could get his real world runner with his very next build!
ReplyDeleteA lot of pm chasers are afraid of simming or may think they are "too old" for it. That is just nonsense. With as little as an hour or two of practice, a person of average ability can be simming and testing maybe 90% of any designs that might occur to him. Imo, the real reason for not simming is just plain laziness or the crazy belief that since Bessler didn't sim to find his runner, then they don't need to either. Do anyone actually think that Bessler wouldn't have been simming if it was available to him back then? Of course, he would have.
Instead of needing a decade to find his runner, he might have found it in only six months! With the resulting extra nine and a half years to market his invention he might have sold it and we might actually be using it right now! I recommend all pm chasers get themselves a copy of Working Model 2D and give it a try. It's so "user friendly" it almost hugs you!
I agree that wm2d is a great sim program for the beginner, but if you go to their official site, they will try to empty your wallet to let you use it. There are some sites, however, that claim to provide free downloads of it some of which are "cracked" meaning they have been modified to remove the © protection and let you save your progress. Here's one such site:
Deletehttps://www.zedload.com/working-model-2d-crack-serial-download.html
I would caution anyone who uses this or any similar site to run a security scan on ANY files they download to make sure they are clean of any viruses or malware.
Looks like JC is busy deleting people's comments here again and hoping no one notices. Maybe he can't use wm2d, but why would he be trying to keep anyone else here who wants to do so with a pirated copy from getting one? Anyway, before he deletes this comment, you can get such a copy from a site called zedload.com. Hurry before he tries to hide this info from you again! (Maybe he should be more concerned about working on his wheel than censoring others?!)
DeleteYeah that 20 October 2025 anon 06:50 comment with the link to zedload.com is suddenly and mysteriously "back". But where was it when it wasn't here? Maybe the Google AI censorship program grabbed it with the intention of permanently deleting it, but then it realized that too many people had noticed it missing and were starting to get suspicious. That's bad so to keep the secret AI censorship program as hidden as possible, it replaced that comment today. This advanced AI censorship program is very covert. It is always working secretly in the background and trying to keep people from realizing what it's doing. But, it will keep on working 24/7 until the Google multi billionaire capitalists have near complete control of the masses and their opinions. Once they have that they will have near complete control of the US government and can make any laws they want to make themselves even richer. Many are starting to drool at the the thought of become trillionairs! Too bizarre you think? You'd be surprised at the lengths the capitalists will go to make themselves even richer. There is no limit to how much wealth they want to accumulate or what they will do to get it. It's like they have some sort of wealth addiction like a junkie has a heroin addiction! One way to defeat this is to periodically make a copy of this blog's comment page so you will notice whenever some comment "mysteriously" disappears. That should also help us keep track of any comments that JC tries to delete hoping no one will notice. He's done this many times in the past whenever someone found a new clue that didn't agree with his five lever theory.
DeleteSome PM simmers are afraid of building because deep down they know that successful sim won't be a success in the real world.
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't a successful sim be a success in the real world? The present world is hungry for new, cheap forms of energy and, I imagine, would eagerly embrace one especially if the capitalists thought they could rake in the $'s or £'s with it. Right now they are raking in the cash with all that "green energy" nonsense in the form of taxpayer funded subsidies and rate hikes which is why our utility bills are going through the roof! However, there is currently a global movement underway to downplay Net Zero and "renewable" energy and head right back to using fossil fuels. The politicians are under increasing pressure from their voters to get their taxes and utility rates down and, in order to keep their cushy, six figure government jobs, those politicians are going to have to start tuning out the alarmist noise from the "greenies" and start appeasing their more practical minded voters. I predict that by 2030 no one will be talking much about Climate Change, Green Energy, or Net Zero because by then reality will finally have caught up with the world. The whole Climate Change Doomsday thing was purposely over hyped so that a few "green" industries could rake in trillions per year and taxpayers be damned. That is going to change and soon.
DeleteUnfortunately, a lot of simmers don't build because they can't. They may do well at a keyboard but are all thumbs in a workshop. They may be physically challenged or lack equipment, etc. That's life. But, they could still contribute with their sims which can act like a road map to lead others, more skilled and better equipped, to success. I try not to put down sim only types or build only types. But, I just think they could make a lot more progress if they could work together. Right now in the pm community everyone is "doing their own thing". Past attempts at collaborations have all failed for various reasons such as egos, paranoia, etc. It's been like that for thousands of years and even now with the internet not much has changed. But, now we do have sims. I think Bessler would have loved them if he'd had them and who knows what marvelous mechanical inventions he would have used them to create.
I haven’t deleted any comments this year, but recently I noticed that when I go into the comments, sometimes there are one or two comments which haven’t appeared, so if I find one I just click on publish. It’s late here but I’ll check it out tomorrow.
DeleteJC
Maybe blogspot automatically deleted it as soon as their site security algorithm saw it contained the url for zedload. Maybe the owners of wm2d contacted blogspot (owned by Amazon IIRC) and made sure they would delete it so as to protect the exorbitant income they make by selling their 30 year old simulator program? If they had any brains over there at wm2d they would realize anyone downloading a pirated version won't be going to wm2d to purchase a copy or license it anyway so they aren't really losing any money on it. Let the rich pay for it while the poor use it for free! I'm one of the poor ones...but that could change after our next lotto drawing!
DeleteI found one comment about me needing a hairpiece, but nothing offensive so I published it. I’ve no idea why some comments don’t make the comment page. I don’t usually go through all the comments in draft mode for two reasons, firstly I assume they all made it to published mode and secondly there are sometimes too many to worry about missing ones unless it gets commented that one or more are missing.
DeleteJC
I agree with anon 04:24. I came here last night and saw that now gone comment giving the link to zedload.com. Today it's gone. Someone or something is messing with the comments on this blog. It could be an algorithm or some sort of scrubbing robot used by Amazon on all of the platforms they own. Maybe it's some new use of AI for censorship purposes. Before you know it AI will be editing our comments to say whatever the powers that be want them to say! It's getting so we won't know who to trust. Whoever controls the content on the internet controls people's beliefs and thoughts. Sounds like Orwell's "1984" to me!
DeleteIt’s back as of now 13:10 U.K. time.
DeleteJC
A "successful " sim wouldn't be successful in the real world because the simmer *thinks* the sim is successful. WM2D can't sim perpetual motion or any motion for that matter that violates thermodynamic laws. If a sim did that, the sim has user input errors. The errors would show up in a physical model that would work for a short time then stop. Any one that's smart enough to use wm2d should be smart enough to know that. But maybe not, given the comments here.
DeleteYou're wrong about that anon 14:04. You can make a simple disc wheel using wm2d, pin its center to the background with a pivot icon, attach the torque icon anywhere to the wheel, then hit Run and watch the wheel slowly accelerate. If you then graph the rotational kinetic energy of the wheel, you will see it constantly increasing along with the increasing speed of the wheel. Wm2d does not care what the source of the torque is. If one has a more complex pm wheel design whose moving weighted levers manage to keep the cog of the weights on one side of the axle to create the torque, wm2d will show the wheel's rotational kinetic energy constantly increasing as the wheel turns. It's an untrue myth that wm2d cannot be used to find a pm wheel design. I think that myth is promoted by those who have decided they cannot make sims so they just try to deny their validity to justify their failure to use them.
DeleteThanks for proving my point so quickly.
DeleteObviously the sim of a working wheel will test a system/configuration that doesn’t violate any physical laws. Bessler succeeded so clearly there is a configuration that complies with the laws of physics that we all accept.
DeleteJC
A working wheel would violate all physical laws if it was shown to not be a hoax.
DeleteWe don’t know how Bessler built his wheels to work so until someone can find that answer, they remain in the same category with other clever deceptions.
Just because we don't know exactly how Bessler's wheels worked in detail does not mean they would be violating the laws of physics if they were genuine (which most here believe they were). His wheels could have been following all the then and now known mechanical and physical laws only exploiting some loop hole in them to do what they did. Consider this interesting criticism by Bessler of Wagner who was convinced Bessler was hoaxing everyone:
Delete"Because Wagner is incapable of inventing such a device as mine,
he thinks no-one else in the world can. He's the cleverest man of all
who live on this earth. But, if only he could thoroughly cleanse his
ears of the wax of hatred which is blocking them up, he'd soon
realize, as many honest people do, that the world of mechanics is
one that no-one can fully fathom. This being the case, why
shouldn't the great Perpetuum Mobile have a place in it somewhere?"
Great quote! Yes, I think when people can't figure something out, they to tend to automatically assume it's a hoax of some kind. The real message they're putting out, however, is that, if it was genuine, then they, being so smart as they want everyone to think they are, would have to immediately understand it. Since they don't immediately understand it...it MUST be a hoax! The possibility that they don't understand everything never seems to enter their minds. The "scientists" of our world are particular prone to "thinking" like this!
DeleteI know how it worked. It was not a hoax and it doesn’t violate physical laws. The correct configuration has not yet been revealed or demonstrated.
ReplyDeleteJC
"The correct configuration has not yet been revealed or demonstrated."
DeleteThat's what everyone here is expecting YOU to do!
"That's what everyone here is expecting YOU to do!"
DeleteLol! Please write the following down on a index card and tape it to your computer screen: "You will NEVER see anything from John Collins that can be simmed!" Then over the years that come and go look at that card daily. You will find that it will not make any difference what birthday he has coming up, what the next holiday is, whether it's the winter or summer solstice, if it's the 333rd anniversary of Bessler's first public pm wheel demonstration, or what kind of ice cream cake someone wants to send him to celebrate. You will still SEE nothing from him that can be simmed. And, I will go even further with my predictions. You will NEVER see any "new" clues from him either! Why? Because he cannot risk anyone looking at them and providing better alternative interpretations of them or just considering them as totally irrelevant. Now let's see him prove me wrong! I'm not in the least worried that he ever will.
You're mean anon 06:47. John has already promised to soon reveal his design and also to provide a blog with some of his never before revealed clues. I have faith that he will deliver on those promises and am looking forward to what he shows us.
Delete@anon 10:37
DeleteUnfortunately I think a lot of people here tend to agree with anon 06:47. They've been reading JC's claims to "know how it worked" for years yet he never proves it with any drawings or photos or videos. If he truly knew how it worked it should not be a problem telling us how since supposedly it is so obvious and simple. Many may think he's actually currently clueless and just procrastinating while he desperately tries to come up with something that looks workable. If that's the case, then one wonders how long he will play that game before he finally admits he has nothing and never did?
I don't think he's clueless. He has plenty of clues and they have led him to a certain design which he is now convinced is "it". But, when what he's building does not work, he will just dismiss that as due to his sloppy construction and not question his clues. If he reveals his design and the sims still show it is a non runner he will immediately say the sims must be wrong and his clues are right and that eventually someone will finally make an accurate sim that shows it's a runner. At that point his pm seeking will quietly end and he'll just be interested in using this blog to sell books for the rest of his life and maybe push his design. Occasionally someone will take an interest in his design and try to modify it into a runner for him. But, I don't think anything will come of it. His story will eventually just become yet another colorful chapter in the bizarre history of pm. That is probably much better than being known for nothing which sadly is the fate of about 99.999999% of humanity.
DeletePeople that say they know how it works without proof belong with the same people that say their sim works. They *think* they know. Both positions take proof.
ReplyDeleteMuch depends upon one's definition of "proof". For many all that matters is that they themselves believe something is true. If others also believe it is true then that's fine and if they don't then that's fine too. Sometimes those obsessed with "proving" things are true to others really aren't too convinced in the truth of those things themselves. Also, those demanding "proof" from others is often a barely polite way of telling them that their judgment, knowledge, or honesty is suspect. Ultimately, believing something that is false will not make it true and denying something that is true will not make it false. If something is true then it will eventually become obvious to most people and if it's false most people will eventually realize it. Time and experience always serve to eventually define our reality for us whether we like that reality or not.
DeleteBelief relies only on faith. Science relies on empirical evidence. Truth relies on facts. Proof is the transition from belief to fact.
DeleteEveryone claims to want the facts, but then they disagree over what the facts are. Often one person's "facts" are just another person's nonsense. Believing that truth depends on facts is really just another form of faith practiced by a special kind of priest called a "scientist".
DeleteEveryone knows what proof means, except for your dumbass.
DeleteYou're absolutely right, anon 14:02. Anyone with a smidgen of common sense can look out his window and see that the Earth is flat and that the Sun and the planets all go around the Earth which is the center of the universe. What more proof would one need? Seeing is believing, right?
DeleteAnd you just proved my point again.
DeleteBessler spent about twenty years trying to "prove" to everyone that he actually had a genuine pm wheel. What did it get him? Today the world largely dismisses him as a charlatan and a con man and even a nut case. Of course, he didn't reveal what he had other than to Karl. But, I suspect that if he had announced that he planned to revealed the secret of his wheels to the world then most likely the money hungry capitalists back then, intent on making big thalers off of the sale of steam engines and coal, would have caused him to have a tragic "accident" and any wheels he still had sitting around to go up in flames. Think anyone nowadays with a genuine pm wheel will get different treatment?
DeleteWe're also all supposed to now believe that Bessler just fell off of that windmill to his death...yeah, right.
I think you got that right anon 22:33. As soon as Nikola Tesla announced that he had a plan to provide the world with free electrical power, his life was threatened and his laboratory "mysterious" caught fire burning up all of his experiments and notes. He wound up fleeing back to his native land which is now in Croatia for his own safety. The big money boys don't take kindly to anyone who threatens their cash flow.
DeleteWhy would anyone push him after he gave up? The big money boys get their piece of any new technology eventually. Conspiracy minded idiot.
DeleteTesla was the type who like Bessler wouldn't give up while he was still breathing. He was also the type who made sure he patented all of his inventions which means "the big money boys" would not have been able to horn in on them without paying his price. A lot cheaper for them to just kill him off, steal his unpatented inventions, and then claim they invented them. They know all of the tricks to use. No telling how many inventors lost their inventions after they suddenly died. I think in many cases those inventions got shelved because they threatened the old technologies that were still making the rich richer. You are a naive idiot if you think this isn't happening even right now!
DeleteTesla died in debt from heart failure. He spent all his money on failed projects like Wardenclyffe tower, the death ray weapon, and the earthquake machine.The lab fire's evidence suggests it was the result of contractor error during demolition work.
DeleteHe's a better example to support a conspiracy theory, at least some of his ideas were possible. But he wasn't killed by the money boys, lol.
That fire in Tesla's South Fifth Avenue lab in NYC happened on March 13th, 1895 and destroyed years of research, models, notes, and equipment — essentially wiping out much of Tesla’s early work. Here's why ChatGPT says is was "suspicious":
Delete"Several reasons make historians and enthusiasts question whether it was purely accidental:
Timing: The fire occurred while Tesla was conducting sensitive, high-voltage experiments and after some reports of tensions with competitors and investors.
No clear cause: Despite being attributed to “electrical wiring,” no formal investigation ever confirmed an origin.
Motives: Tesla had begun to rival other inventors, including Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse, in the electrical power industry — a space with huge financial stakes.
Pattern: Tesla later experienced other setbacks that some see as part of a pattern of “bad luck” or targeted disruption (though that’s speculative)."
Certainly sounds suspicious to me.
I'd bet dollars to donut holes that whoever set that "suspicious" fire made sure he filled his arms with as many of Tesla's notes and models as he could carry before the flames got too hot. I wonder how much he got paid for the job? Probably tens of thousands which was a lot of money back then for the average person.
DeleteTesla sold his patents to Westinghouse for 60k and royalties, if he wanted to give the world free electricity he had a funny way of doing it. When Westinghouse faced ruin from litigation and competition with Edison, Tesla tore up the royalty contracts. He never really cared about money, so no motive for setting fire to his lab. He was 86 when he died in 1942 after developing obsessive compulsive disorder among other things, so no motive for killing him and stealing any unpatented inventions.
DeleteAnd, why would anyone push Bessler off his windmill after he gave up on his wheel? He gave up trying to prove he had invented pm, then the money boys finger him? Lol.
"And, why would anyone push Bessler off his windmill after he gave up on his wheel? He gave up trying to prove he had invented pm, then the money boys finger him?"
DeleteNo! He did NOT give up on trying to prove he had invented pm. He was actually working on and completed a smaller one direction wheel in the months before his "accident". It was supposed to be sold to a consortium over in England involved with the Royal Society. But, when it came time to come through with the thalers, they started playing the waiting game with him hoping, as he grew more desperate (actually from starvation!), he'd give it to them for a pittance. They obviously grossly underestimated his resolve. When they had pushed him too far, he just destroyed that smaller working wheel. At that point the big money boys backing coal and steam engines would have decided it was the best time to put an end to his "mechanical career" by pushing him off of the top of that windmill. No more pm wheels from him and everyone left wondering if it was an accident or suicide. Maybe he was so hungry, that he just passed out and fell off the top of the windmill? Maybe he was so depressed that he decided to end it all? The big money boys were and still are experts at covering their tracks.
JC wrote: "Anthony (a newbie) has this signature “it’s not where you see the weights on the wheel that matters, its where the wheel (FEELS) the weights thats important”. Now that is a fact I learned so long ago that I almost forgot how important it is."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that "fact" you "learned so long ago" is WRONG!
Here's a quick wm2d model I made turned into a 10 second looping gif that proves it's the locations of the weights and NOT their support points on a wheel, that counts as far as making a wheel turn is concerned. Although the supports (I used ropes) are attached to different points on the weight levers, the wheel does not turn. That is because the centers of mass of the two weights are the same distance from the pivot at the center of the wheel.
You need to learn some new facts when it comes to mechanics or you may never get your wheel working!
https://i.postimg.cc/446FKs55/Balance-Demo.gif
(note that the gif linked to above loops every 4 seconds and not every 10 seconds like in my original gif because postimage only allows 4 second gifs)
anon 18:21, your wm2d demonstration does not negate Anthony's signature! Nowhere does he say the wheel feels the weights' support points. You made that assumption. When weights or the *stiff* levers that they are attached to are locked to the wheel (frame) as in your model the wheel will feel the weights at the rim.
DeleteWhen weights are attached to flexible levers or strings the wheel feels the weights about where they hang. Now replace the stiff levers of your wm2d model with flexible ones or even strings. In the case of strings, the wheel senses the weights at the support points (the green ropes) because they hang below the supports. In the case of flexible levers, it's somewhere between the supports and the wheel rim. Of course this depends on the degree of the lever's flexibility.
Facts are Facts. Anthony (and JC) are RIGHT!
anon 21:08 wrote:
Delete"Nowhere does he (Anthony) say the wheel feels the weights' support points. You (anon 18:21) made that assumption."
Anthony, according to JC, said: "it’s not where you see the weights on the wheel that matters, its where the wheel (FEELS) the weights thats important”.
I think Anthony would only be right if the weights were hanging straight down from their attachment points to the wheel by ropes or levers that could swing. What anon 18:21 is suggesting is that is only a special case. If the weights, however, are moved horizontally away from their original locations and are attached to stiff levers that do not swing and that hold the weights at their new locations but whose other ends are still attached to and locked to the original attachment points on a wheel, then it is the locations of the weights that counts and not the locations of the attachment points.
Anon 19 Oct. 22:03 wrote:
Delete“The locations of the weights, or where they’re felt don’t matter. The only thing that matters is that nothing was seen of the prime mover either in the demonstrations or the drawings.”
That’s right anon. Any basic drawing of overbalance works. It doesn’t matter which one you pick or where the locations are, or ‘felt’ by the wheel.
Any overbalancing mechanism will work (be self-sustaining) with a prime mover hidden inside the wheel.
DeleteI’ll try and explain why Anthony and I are correct in the next blog.
DeleteJC
@JC Instead of wasting more time with that "explanation", how about you start showing us some of those "never before revealed" clues that you've been boasting about of late? That's what everyone here really wants to see.
DeleteLol! Anon 13:38, you must have missed that earlier 22 October 2025 by anon 06:47!
Delete