I’ve taken some photos of my wheel, and I’m colouring the parts to make the descriptions more readily understood. This is being done on the assumption that either it isn’t finished by February 5th, this year, or it doesn’t work. There could be two or three reasons why it doesn’t work. Firstly, maybe I’ve made a mistake in some calculations causing it to lock up; or secondly it doesn’t work because my whole concept is totally wrong. Obviously I don’t seriously believe that, but I have to admit it is a possibility, however convinced I am that I’m right.
The most likely reason why it might not work is simply the difficulty of building it the way I have. Many excellent models I have seen over the years have gained my admiration, not so much for the attempted solution to Bessler’s wheel, but for the craftsmanship exhibited in the way they have been constructed. If I had built in three dimensions the whole structure would have been much more robust and rigid and not, like mine, prone to lateral sway and/or locking up, amongst other faults. My wheel consists of a single three foot diameter of MDF, (Medium Density Fibreboard). Every anchor and pivot is a bolt fixed through the MDF. Each weighted lever rotates about a single bolt fixed through the MDF. The levers should be double to rule out lateral sway; the pivots should be supported at top and bottom, not just the bottom. I got into the habit of thinking; check the design first by building something cheap and cheerful, and if it works then build something of better quality. Anyway, time will tell if it works and then others can test the design.
So it seems to me that I should explain the concept first, explaining what is usually referred to as the work-around. By this I mean overcoming the age old problem of producing a device which is made to rotate and do work. This is to be achieved by designing a unique configuration using the fall of a limited number of identical weights, attached inside a wheel, which cause it to rotate continuously. The work-around requires that the device is able lift the fallen weights back up to their pre-fall position, with no external input or assistance and no subterfuge.
There are many people who have studied this problem and built endless models, who believe there is a special configuration still to be found which will prove to be the answer, and also confirm Bessler’s claims to have found the solution and proved it over 300 years ago. I believe I’ve found it, thanks to Bessler’s clues, but if it fails please don’t dismiss the “work-around” it’s correct even if the build doesn’t work.
JC
I feel like I'm on an airliner that is about to land after a long and tiring flight! Time to tighten our seat belts and prepare for that first bounce and screech as the tires hit the runway.
ReplyDeleteSome quick comments:
>>>"...but I have to admit it is a possibility, however convinced I am that I’m right."
It's good to read that you admit you could be wrong...humility is the first step toward wisdom.
>>>"The levers should be double to rule out lateral sway; the pivots should be supported at top and bottom, not just the bottom."
You might have solved that problem by using a thicker MDF disc and then using much longer bolts with washers and lock nuts on both sides of the disc. Ken B pushes the use of double levers for rigidity and that would seem to make sense of that clue that Bessler did not want anyone touching the ends of those cylindrical lead weights he removed from the Merseburg wheel to let the examiners handle...but only after he carefully wrapped them up in handkerchiefs. If they did, they may have felt the end holes of the long shaft Bessler bored through the lengths of the weights so he could pass a long carriage bolt through them to secure them to the ends of parallel arms for each lever.
>>>"The work-around requires that the device is able lift the fallen weights back up to their pre-fall position, with no external input or assistance and no subterfuge."
That requires that the lost gravitational potential energy of SEVERAL descending side weights be combined and used together to lift a SINGLE ascending side weight back into its unextended position. Yes, I do believe that is the correct approach...like the motto from that book "The Three Musketeers"..."All for one (but skip the 'and one for all' part!)". Ken B uses a similar approach, but he, IIRC, uses the falling of four weights to lift two and even then not all of the way back against their stops (two weights do no lifting in his design). He's forced to do that because, unlike you, he worked with eight weighted levers instead of five which is why his connected principle's ropework has to be more complicated.
>>>"...but if it fails please don’t dismiss the “work-around” it’s correct even if the build doesn’t work."
Actually, if one is not going to make energy magically appear out of nowhere and thereby violate the 1st LAW of thermodynamics, that "Bessler workaround" is the ONLY principle that could be used to make a genuine working pm wheel. I'm wondering however, if there is only ONE design that can use it? If not, then your discovery could open the door to many different kinds of working pm wheels in the future and some of them might be a LOT more powerful than what Bessler built.
Suddenly, the future for pm wheel research is looking brighter to me.
Oh, that runway is coming up fast and we're beginning to make our descent...let's all get together after we land and have a celebration party at the airport restaurant. Champagne for everyone! ๐๐ฌ๐พ๐พ๐พ๐ฅด๐น๐ต
Let's hope that airliner doesn't crash and burn before it reaches the runway! What's the name of our airline again? Oh, it's called "Dead Duck Airlines"! Gulp! I'm starting to feel little uneasy about our soon coming landing...
DeleteJC wrote: "I believe I’ve found it, thanks to Bessler’s clues, but if it fails please don’t dismiss the “work-around” it’s correct even if the build doesn’t work."
DeleteI hope you've found a runner too. But, if you can't build it and none of the sims show it can work, there will have to come a point at which you must admit defeat. It is, of course, a bitter pill to have to swallow especially after years invested in chasing a solution. But, think of it as cutting your losses. It will save you from a lot of future wasted effort. There's really no shame in admitting defeat if one has truly been defeated. Someone months ago here had a great saying which I still remember and use: "You don't have to ride a bus to the end of the line to realize you're on the wrong bus." I've ridden too many buses to the end of the line in my time until I was forced to give up. I wish now that I hadn't because all of my wasted time and effort could have been used on a different design that might have finally given me the runner I was looking for but never found. Now I've reached the age when the hunt must end for me...my idea of pm now is just a comfortable rocking chair on my side porch.
Good luck John .. if the clues you've found lead you to a workaround , then they can lead us there too with your help , or at least to recognize the workaround - better still if your math supports its potential to be a runner then even the most recalcitrant can hardly ignore the math - like Reacher , we can all change buses anytime we want and go where the whim takes us - especially if we have learned why something doesn't work , it makes hopping Greyhounds almost compulsory - in the mean time I hope you get to soar like an eagle and ignore the turkeys and dead ducks ..
DeleteI had an odd dream last night. This is what I saw...
Deletehttps://postimg.cc/c6nQ3W3W
@anon 22:59
DeleteI had a night of weird dreams myself. I think it was because before hitting the sack I downed half a pepperoni pizza and that always gives me scary dreams. Probably doesn't mean anything though cause it's just a dream...but it was more like a nightmare! Anyway, here's what I saw in my dream:
https://i.postimg.cc/8zCbw8V1/my-nightmare.jpg
Maybe that pepperoni the guy used on your pizza was old and had some sort of hallucinogenic mold growing on it? I don;t trust restaurant food nowadays and always try to do my own cooking using the freshest ingredients I can find.
DeleteLol! Some of you guys are so cruel.
DeleteI liked the high flying eagle but not the crash-landing one!
DeleteJC
After seeing that pile of dead ducks with the dead eagle on top of it (which I guess is supposed to represent JC's five lever wheel design if it does not work), I'll never eat a pepperoni pizza before bedtime again......maybe just a hot, cheesy slice or two of a meatball, onion, and green pepper pizza! Dammit...I had to go and mention pizza...now I'm starting to drool uncontrollably! I think I left some pizza slices in the fridge...time to check...got to eat them before they go bad, right? Waste not, want not as they say.
DeleteAs Neil Armstrong said from our moon in 1969, "The eagle has landed...". However, his "eagle" had its landing gear in contact with the surface and not sticking up toward the sky as does the one in anon 23:31's AI generated (I hope) image!
DeleteJC wrote "Many excellent models I have seen over the years have gained my admiration, not so much for the attempted solution to Bessler’s wheel, but for the craftsmanship exhibited in the way they have been constructed."
ReplyDeleteThe skills of the world's greatest craftsman mean nothing if he does not have the right design and all his workmanship will only produce impressive dead ducks. I'd rather have a sloppy build based on the right design that actually works. It's performance that really counts in the pm game, not appearance.
My prediction is that soon after John reveals his design here, some self-proclaimed "expert" on mechanics will crawl out of the woodwork and immediately declare that it can't possibly work because the descending and ascending side weights are moving through the same vertical distances which means no excess mechanical energy ever be available to accelerate the wheel or run attached machines. That "expert" won't, however, spend even five seconds simming or building anything. Why should he leave the comfort of this ivory tower to dirty his hands with such a lowly task? He will absolutely believe that his "knowledge" is more than enough to decide what will and will not work. If anyone disagrees with his pronouncement, he will immediately declare that person is ignorant of mechanics, physics, and science in general. If John's design does not immediately work or lead to a working sim in only a day or so, that "expert" will then declare that lack of evidence PROVES he is 100% right. He will then say that he pities all those here that did not immediately agree with his instant analysis of John's wheel.
Deleteonly if he is unstable . that being said , it is irrefutable that weights in a rotating wheel must lose vertical height on the descending side & gain the same vertical height on the ascending side to reset . this is well known , & generally thought to be an inescapable consequence of weights changing radius in a rotating wheel to create imbalance forces . which makes the Collins Mechanical Workaround an even more intriguing arrangement , & as evidence of a possible mechanical enigma that has been overlooked by mechanics , engineers, & scientists. I'll be following closely to see where we got it all so wrong . best of British luck to you JC !
Delete"
DeleteCMW .. Change My Worldview .. how appropriate
Thank you anon 04::22 and to anon 02:16 I must try to complete my working model and prove it. But you’re right, there are some diehards who won’t accept the evidence of their own eyes.
DeleteJC
Sadly, John, you may never actually "prove it" by yourself. Not for lack trying, however, but because you lack the skills, materials, and tools to do so. Your real hope, imo, lies in someone finding a sim that validates whatever your "workaround" principle happens to be. It's really the principle that is important. IF it's valid, then it might be applicable to a wide variety of wheels turning them all into pm. Maybe it's that "prime mover" that some here occasionally opine about. Only TWELVE more days 'til the completion of the first year of your ninth decade of life! In, hopefully, less than only 288 hours we will all finally know what you've been secretly working on for years. Something tells me it will have been worth the wait!
DeleteMaybe the only one we ultimately have to prove anything in life to is...OURSELF! If one can do that, then he will achieve a state of philosophical serenity in which the need to convince others becomes irrelevant. How many people who are obsessed with some religion really need to convince or convert others to it? Probably very few because they are content knowing that they will wake up in heaven one day while all of those others who don't believe as they do will not. As far as Bessler's wheels go, it should be enough to know that one has finally "found it" and too bad for any others who do not accept his solution. He knows it is correct, rejoices in his discovery, and can go to eternity firmly convinced that, someday, maybe even in the distant future, the exact secret of Bessler's wheels will be known so that working replicas of them can be built and those alive then will look back and realize that so and so actually had that same solution so many years ago. So and so can then look down from his heavenly perch and smile as he hears all of the overdue praise being heaped upon him and those giving that praise wondering how so and so's critics could have been so blind / stupid as to not realize the logic of so and so's analysis of Bessler's wheels. Bessler's wheels might have, in theory, been perpetual...but individual human lives, in practice, are but an infinitesimal flicker in eternity. Stop wasting your tiny little spark trying to get others to approve of you and your ideas. The time for that just might not be right yet...
Delete@anon16:58.
DeleteAll of your philosophy certainly sounds nice, but I want to SEE at least two independently made sims showing JC's wheel works and would most likely work before I accept that he's actually found anything to do with B's wheels. I know from my own past experiences how VERY easy it is to run down a dead end street following one of B's vague "clues". If ten different people look at the same "clue", they will come up with ten different interpretations of it that can send all of them on ten different wild goose chases. Imo, B placed those vague "clues" of his right where he did to cause maximum frustration to anyone trying to learn his secrets without paying for them first. It's worked for three centuries so far and now we're all supposed to believe that JC finally figured it all out while god knows how many before him were not able to do that? Seems unlikely to me despite his long involvement with the subject. But, I'm trying to keep an open mind about all of this and like others here am looking forward to JC's soon coming big reveal.
If Bessler had a genuine pm wheel, then sooner or later someone should be able to rediscover it. Why not JC? He's either got it, got close to it, or got nothing. Time will tell. Even if he has nothing, life will go on for him and everyone else on our planet as will the search for "the" solution by the most motivated from each new generation. JC's coming disclosure will only be another chapter in the colorful story of the search for pm and, if he's very lucky, it could even be the closing chapter and written by him alone. I'm wishing him the best.
DeleteI ended my search years go after I finally accepted that success was not in the cards for me. Do I regret that decision? Yes and no. Yes because after you've done something for years it's hard to just walk away from it all. But, no since it freed my mind up for other pursuits, mainly hobbies, that I now enjoy because they give me some successful and useful results in a reasonable amount of time. No, they are not pm devices, just little useful inventions I come up with in my cellar shop to make daily life easier. I'm not going to be the next Bessler...but I wouldn't mind being the next Edison.
@anon 01:21
DeleteI admire your ability to quit the pm chase. I do not have the strength to do that. I will continue to chase pm until I either find it or drop dead trying to find it. I have no other choice and have accepted my destiny. Is it a curse? Maybe. But, I've tried quitting in the past and cannot. After a week or so I can think of nothing else and MUST return to it. ChatGPT says I could be suffering from what is clinically referred to as "Perpetuomotor Fixation Disorder" or "PMFD". No matter, back to the chase for me.
@anon 14:56. There must be some sort of effective treatment that could help you quit so you could lead a normal life again. Talk therapy probably won't be enough. Maybe really strong meds, electroconvulsion, deep brain stimulation? If it's really bad, you might need some sort of lobotomy where the surgeon actually severs the nerves that are involved in your PMFD. You need to discuss this with your health care provider. I'm sure help is available, but you are the one who is going to have to ask for it. I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers. Good luck.
DeleteIt's just a fight or flight response. You'll no-fuss quit once a gravity PM wheel is revealed by whomever does it. In a few weeks if we're lucky ;) Then a new fixation starts. How to improve it. But only for the authentic scientifically motivated ones. Not for the glory hounds.
DeleteI'd be overjoyed just to get something--anything--that keeps itself in motion. I'll leave the refinements to others to struggle with. Once you've made it to top of Mt. Everest, how motivated will you be to climb the other mountains on our planet? Not much I'd say.
DeleteOMG! The rumor is true. JC did make a quick trip to Nepal before last Christmas and made his way, unaccompanied by a Sherpa guide, to the very summit of Mt. Everest! He didn't even bring extra oxygen with him to prevent hypoxia up there. Now that he's solved the Bessler wheel mystery, is there anything he can't do if he sets his mind to it??? And, he did it in only a small fraction of the seven weeks it took Sir Edmund Hilary and his Sherpa guide Tenzing Norgay to make the ascent back in 1953! JC just cannot be stopped by gravity!
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/26YGTJxJ/JC-from-top-of-Mt-Everest.jpg
Here's a nice photo of Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide Tenzing Norgay. Note the oxygen tanks they had to carry on their backs to make the final climb to the summit of Mount Everest. Mild symptoms of hypoxia such as dizziness and fatigue can begin above about 11,500 feet and, depending upon the individual, may require supplementary oxygen then. Without the oxygen the symptoms will worsen as the altitude increases. Above about 26,000 feet is called "the death zone" because the symptoms will become severe and can be fatal if prolonged. The summit of Mount Everest is 29,032 feet high or over 3,000 feet into the death zone!
Deletehttps://magazine.chrono24.com/cdn-cgi/image/f=auto,metadata=none,q=65,w=1960/2021/05/Edmund_Hillary_and_Tenzing_Norgay.jpg
What is not generally known is that when Hillary and Norgay finally made it to the top of that mountain, they only stayed up there for about 15 minutes! That was because they did not want to waste their limited supply of oxygen which they would need as then began to descend again. Just enough time for some photos and to plant three flags. They were the United Nations flag with the white globe against a blue background on it, the British Union Jack, and the Nepalese flag since Norgay was Nepalese.
DeletePeople talk so much about Hillary and Tenzing's feat that they completely forget about the first WOMAN to summit Mount Everest. She was a Japanese woman named Junko Tabei who reached the summit on May 16, 1975. She was also the first woman to ascend the Seven Summits, the highest peaks on EVERY continent!
Hillary and Tenzing also got another honor a few years ago although, both being dead, they would not know of it. A NASA fly by probe found a mountain range near the equator of Pluto and named the two highest peaks in it after the two earlier first climbers of Everest. The mountain named after Tenzing is about 11,000 feet high and only about 1/3 of the height of Everest. Still, the Nepalese guide's name will be remembered forever now. Here's an article that gives more information:
Deletehttps://eos.org/articles/plutos-features-receive-first-official-names
Btw...there are actually moving glaciers on the surface of Pluto...but they are made of frozen NITROGEN!
Frozen nitrogen! Damn...I was planning a vacation there...something tells me I better pack my long winter underwear!
Delete@anon 04:03
DeleteNot to disparage Hillary and Norgay's achievement in any way, but it is possible to summit Everest without using extra oxygen. Reinhold Messner, along with Peter Habeler, became the first climbers to do that on May 8, 1978. Their achievement was considered impossible at the time, but it significantly changed the approach to high-altitude climbing. However, one better be in very good condition to do it without suffering from altitude sickness during that final ascent. I wonder how JC conditioned himself for his recent climb?
Unfortunately I have fear of heights so I wouldn’t go there.๐ณ
DeleteJC
JOHN...check your blog settings...for some reason the Reply links are not working properly so I cannot reply to someone else's comment without putting it into a new comment!
ReplyDeleteForget that request...the Reply links are suddenly working again!
DeleteAARGHHH! I spoke too soon...the Reply links aren't working again...this is maddening!
ReplyDeleteOK...it looks like all of the reply buttons are working again, John. Feel free to delete the last few comments complaining about the nonworking links. Got to keep this place tidy!
DeleteNo it’s ok, I’ll leave it for now. I did look for an answer but none found. I guess it fixed itself. ๐
DeleteHere's a short article that goes into the ongoing collapse of the UK's industrial sector and why our allies across "the pond" are now paying up to four times the rate for their electrical power than we do in the US:
ReplyDeletehttps://climatechangedispatch.com/uk-climate-crusade-economic-disaster/
Only 7 more days or less to go! I can see the runway lights of the approaching airport. Our airliner is now under 1000 feet altitude, flaps down, throttle up, and the landing gear have deployed and locked into place. We're almost there everyone! ๐
ReplyDeleteLOL! Try not to be too shocked when, just as its tires are about to contact the runway tarmac, your "airliner" suddenly aborts the landing and goes roaring off in a different direction! Once that happens, you won't see it landing anywhere else...ever. Think I can't be right? Watch and see!
DeleteAh...we're finally arriving at our airport...I thought it would never happen...I can't wait to start tasting that celebration champagne that the first anon commenter above mentioned...life is so good...what could possibly go wrong?
Deletehttps://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExcXplZTZ4M3h1dTFjam00azVkZTg0eTF1dmcyN2QzaGFtaGF5d3hhNCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/lvAAnpkilO6J2/giphy.gif
Reminds me if what I wanted to ask JC, where is the fuel stored in modern aircraft, there is not enough room in the wings ! so where ?
DeleteOdd question? In the wings, there’s plenty of room!
DeleteJC
If most people knew that the commercial aircraft they were getting ready to board was, basically, just a gas tank with wings, they might decide to take the train instead! Here's a diagram showing all of the places they can store fuel aboard a commercial aircraft.
Deletehttps://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qwngf_JTCgs/S9s-AT4eitI/AAAAAAAAAw0/QXCOTUU-GDY/s1600/fuel.jpg
Crash landing shortly after takeoff is the most dangerous because the aircraft is said to be "heavy" or loaded with jet fuel which can start leaking on impact and being ignited by the sparks caused by metal scraping against the ground. If the crew has time before crash landing on earth, they will, if their aircraft is still heavy, dump as much fuel as safely possible before their landing to minimize any fires that could start. The best place to crash land is in the ocean even though any burning jet fuel will float on the surface of the water. In such a "ditching" there can still be jet fuel leakage, but no sparks to ignite it. Also, aircraft tend to be loaded with a lot of self-inflating life rafts to keep the passengers afloat until rescue craft can arrive. A ditched aircraft can remain afloat for a while, but it's important to evacuate the crew and passengers as soon as possible.
@anon 15:19
DeleteThat looks like a test crash n a desert area of a typical airliner done to see what kind of injuries the test dummies inside would experience. The absence of fire is most likely due to the fuel tanks being almost empty. I wonder how the plane was flown to the crash site? Unless the human pilots bailed out earlier, it would have to have been done using some sort of remote radio control.
Interesting the way the nose section breaks away on impact. If it had contained two pilots who were strapped in tight, they might have survived. If you look carefully you can make out the then exposed seats just behind the cockpit wall and I think I can see one of the crash dummy's arms waving about. Again, in this particular crash many of the human passengers might have survived with only minor injuries if any. Having the engines off of the wings is a good design feature. They cannot tear away on impact and release flaming jet fuel all over the place.
Look...it's JC and B's favorite number! Also, only this number of days or less left until the BIG REVEAL that will change the world!
ReplyDeletehttps://postimg.cc/Pvm094JN
Only 120 hours or less to go! I was starting to wonder if this day would ever arrive, but it's now almost here! ☺️๐ฌ๐๐๐๐พ๐พ๐พ
My advice to JC is that he reveal NOTHING! Our current corrupt, money hungry world is not worthy to know Bessler's secrets. He should take it to his grave with him and leave it to be rediscovered by some future generation that is far saner than ours and will not misuse it. Imagine what could have happened if Hitler and his Nazi scientists had gotten their hands on the secret of the atomic bomb in the 1930's! Billions could have died.
Delete@anon 03:34. So instead FDR and the American scientists got their hands on it first and immediately used it to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians! Oh, but the Allies were the "good" guys and it was, after all, a war so that makes it okay, right? Not in my book. I call it a WAR CRIME which is exactly what it was!
DeleteDear Mr. John, John Collins, October 21, 2021, 1:30 p.m. "It would probably take many years to discover this mystery, and that means determination to solve it, so they must have had some goal or plan for when it would happen."
ReplyDeleteI think that people who do not love their CREATOR, i.e. GOD as the Holy Trinity, have no point in searching, because they will not achieve results in their arduous search. It is with regret that I express my thoughts. Gravity or tension? What? I still don't know what gravity is, do you? It seems to me that it is something primal, coming from the outside, like a powerful geometric pressure with extreme elasticity. PS. I am 64 years old and I read on the blog that roaring lions are waiting for you to ridicule you, even those who keep silent hope about it. Thanks to your TOTAL contribution to spreading the truth, I think that you are only partially safe, because "the truth defends itself perfectly", despite the insistence that the materials you rely on are unquestionably correct, I do not perceive your reality that may lie. Sincerely.
I am looking forward to you showing your mechanical " workaround " John. I can't help feeling that although purportedly very simple to understand and build once seen, that the prime mover mechanical combination required is also very highly counterintuitive. I look forward to seeing how counterintuitive as per your rationalization of the codes, ciphers, and clues as you interpret them to be. For me I always land back on MT's 44 and 48. What mechanical structure could be added to these simple ball transfer non-runners to make them into runners. For me something repeatable movement, that gives the gear systems of each a sharp impulse of motion to rotate them through and beyond the sticking point. All The Best -f
ReplyDeleteOnce you see it, I think you will find it simple to understand, and like Karl I’m surprised it hasn’t been found before. But I never thought of this before, so perhaps it’s not as obvious as I think.
DeleteJC
If it was truly "simple to understand", then why did not any of the thousands and thousands of others looking for "the" solution before JC came along not find it? Either JC is one of the luckiest Bessler pm wheel chasers in history or his big discovery was found many times in the past and dismissed then because it was not "it" and did not work. I think his promised big reveal could mark a major turning point in the history of the Bessler story. The question is where will things turn toward? JC will either be viewed as a genius or as just another delusional octogenarian who is obsessed with pentagons. Many are now following this blog to see what the outcome will be. Only four days to go now...
DeleteThe difference between JC and the thousands of others is that JC has reverse engineered the mechanics of his potential runner guided only from Bessler's codes, ciphers, and clues included in his publications. Everyone else has approached a potential mechanical solution from being strictly guided by Bessler's writings to a completely liberal disregarding of Bessler's writings, to anywhere in between. It's always been a free choice how we choose to approach it and what we ignore in our research.
Delete@anon 20;22
DeleteKen B also claims to have reverse engineered Bessler's pm wheel design being solely guided by the many geometrical and numerological clues Bessler hid in his drawings. In fact, if one only counts words and drawings published in books, Ken B has probably written more on Bessler's wheels than Bessler himself, Dircks, Jenkins, Schaffer, Gould, Gardner, and Collins combined!
Either can be right , provided and IF , they have found and identified a viable mechanical method to create and maintain an internal torque asymmetry output to accelerate a wheel and maintain its self-movement until its parts break. Success is not at all correllated to number of words published.
DeleteWhat's amazing about Ken B is that he accomplished that with a SINGLE book! But, that book had to be 800 pages long!
DeleteYou deleted and restored the correspondence, but a moment later you deleted it again and replaced it with an even more vitriolic comment on February 4, 2026, at 4:36 AM; I liked you.
ReplyDeleteYou are my friend, and from now on, don't be so sure of yourself, because I don't know if I'll give in.
Now wait patiently, because you've gained a true friend.
๐ค "...and replaced it with an even more vitriolic comment on February 4, 2026"
DeleteHave you perfected a machine that allows you to see the future?!
I'll let you answer the question you asked me, because if you answer, it will be true.
DeleteCan I still call you FRIEND? This is publicly important to me. Please define yourself in terms of friendship.
Yes, I have a machine, not invented by me but by a psychic here named SoS, his machine is called the "Futurocam". However, it does not show JC deleting any comments on 2/4/26. Can you still call me "friend"? If you supply me with free pizza, you can call me anything you want. I prefer the triple cheese pizzas loaded with toppings! But, PLEASE, no anchovies...just the thought of them on pizza makes me gag!
DeleteThe above comments have me baffled, but I hope that all who come here are friendly.
DeleteJ C
The first word in your answer is "Yes." Does that mean it's an affirmation?
DeleteSo, can I call you a spoiled, uninhibited friend who both loves and hates pizza? Is there any truth to that?
As you've probably noticed, John is watching us and what will come of our anonymous relationship, though I promise you that this may change.
I apologize, but I have responsibilities to my grandchildren. I'll get back to you as soon as I have a favorable time.
Jestem przyjaลบnie nastwiony , na pewno nie z powodu Twojej wiedzy w tym temacie , ale z powodu obrony treลci , ktรณre opublikowaลaล . To wystarczy .
DeleteBest regards .
Ignore the trolls John. They are trying to wind you up.
DeleteJohn, why don't you answer the question asked on February 1, 2026 at 4:36 AM
DeleteI'm sorry, I mean:
DeleteJohn, why aren't you answering the question asked on February 1, 2026, at 4:11 AM?
Much confusion here all of a sudden.
Delete@JC. I think that anon 09:21 wants you to answer this question: "Gravity or tension? What? I still don't know what gravity is, do you?"
Einstein claimed to have an answer, but one will need to be mathematician to understand it. Even today many do not accept his answer which involves distortions in the structure of four dimensional "spacetime". That might just be a mathematical invention that does not agree with physical reality even though it does seem to make accurate predictions possible.
I think that gravity forces are produced by something that happens in the space outside of two masses that then pulls or pushes the two masses together. Maybe it has something to do with invisible submicroscopic particles that surround all objects? When those particles from two separated masses interact, gravity force is produced somehow. I don't really know for sure though. But, I am sure that Bessler did not know either and he was still able to construct working pm wheels.
DeleteIt would have been very interesting if the great Newton had been able to visit Bessler and personally test one of his wheels. I would have loved to read what his opinion of the wheels would have been. Like others, however, I don't think he would have just dismissed them as hoaxes. He would have been hard at work trying to figure out how they worked. That is exactly what everyone here is still doing!
didn't ask YOU, I asked John:
DeleteBut, age doesn't define who you are.
You're asking a logical question. So I'll answer you directly and without embarrassment:
The great Newton didn't visit Bessler because he understood he would fail and be left destitute. Is that so hard to understand?
Gravity or Tension? I don’t know, all I know is it’s there and we can make use of it.
DeleteJC
Anon 11:45: "The great Newton didn't visit Bessler because he understood he would fail and be left destitute. Is that so hard to understand?"
Delete"...would fail and be left destitute"? Hardly. Newton was born into a poor farming family, but, after burying two husbands, his mother became a wealthy widow and left him a sizable inheritance. He eventually became the Warden and then Master of the Royal Mint with a hefty salary. He also became President of the Royal Society before he was knighted! No...he did not worry about becoming "destitute". He left a sizable estate behind and was buried in Westminster Abbey.
Hi John, I am very curious....please tell me if there is any POSSIBLE ambiguity in the language translation of "if I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster." Is there any chance the original version implied that the machine could NOT revolve (full revolution) with only one crossbar? The phrase ", just as if it can hardly turn itself at all " seems superfluous and included for a reason.
DeleteI'm not JC, but that phrase "if I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" is one of the more vague ones in the B literature. Instead of translating the quote as "...just one cross-bar IN my machine...", it might have been more accurately translated as "...just one cross-bar WITH/NEAR my machine...".
DeleteMany think that what is described has nothing to do with the mechanics INSIDE of the drums of B's wheels. Rather, it describes a compound pulley system contained in a metal frame that was attached outside of a drum to the ceiling over the axle of one of B's wheels and was used to allow a wheel's turning axle to lift heavy weights off of the floor near the wheel than could be lifted by just attaching a weight's rope directly to the axle.
By adding more pulleys to the suspended frame containing them, a heavier weight could be lifted. Since that also reduced the forced needed to lift the weight, it allowed the axle to turn faster. But, the weight would be lifted much more slowly then would a lighter weight attached directly to the axle. If this interpretation is correct, then those trying to put extra "cross-bars" and pulleys inside of their wheel designs are wasting their time doing so.
It’s a correct translation as far as that is possible given the age of the original - over 300 years. But you have to take into account Bessler’s enjoyment in playing with word meanings. I questioned that translation and in my original German to English - English to German dictionary, with over 2000 pages and 5 inches thick, I remember the meaning of cross-bar covered two columns on each page and there were about six double sided pages of meanings. Add to that my friend who translated everything for me asked me if I wanted literal translations or what he believed were the meanings. I asked for meanings not exact word for word translation as it would have been more difficult to read everything that way.
DeleteSo in my opinion the word “cross” meant that with four mechanisms the wheel did not turn, but with more bars or levers it worked. This in my opinion is the correct meaning and is supported by other clues.
JC
I forgot to add that the word translated as crossbar was actually Kreuz meaning cross.
DeleteJC
I think most consider that the word "cross" means something that looks like the Christian cross which is like a + sign in arithmetic. But, maybe that word should be thought of as meaning "across" which would describe a straight horizontal bar like the kind that a pulley wheel would ride on? That bar would be inserted into a block. Maybe anon 19:11 is referring to a setup that looks like this?
Deletehttps://schempal.com/wp-content/img/double_pulley_diagram_wjdvt.jpg
Bessler might have used something that looked like the one shown on the right side. By varying the number of pulleys in the two blocks (which requires adding "cross-bars" and pulley wheels to them), he could have adjusted the lifting power of his wheels to allow them to lift much heavier loads that could be lifted directly by the low torque of a wheel's turning axle.
From Bessler's AP republished by JC pg 214 .. "In ein Werk gleichsam nur ein Creuz, So wird man es ganz langsam sehen Kaum von sich selber herum drehen; Hingegen, wenn ich zugericht’t Viel Creuze, Zรผge und Gewicht’, So kan das Werk viel schneller lauffen;"
DeleteChatGPT said "Here is a tight, literal-but-readable translation of just the lines you quoted, with Bessler’s mechanical contrast kept clear:
“If I make, in a machine, as it were only a single cross,
then one will see it turn quite slowly,
scarcely rotating of itself;
but if, on the other hand, I arrange
many crosses, linkages, and weights,
then the machine can run much faster.”
Notes (brief, for clarity):
Creuz (cross) → a crossed lever or armature (not a Christian cross), i.e. a simple internal mechanism.
Zรผge → pulls, linkages, or traction elements (draw-arms, cords, or levers).
Gewicht’ → weights.
lauffen → “run” in the mechanical sense (operate / rotate)."
The context of the entire passage in AP XXXIII is B. replying to Wagner's power calculations.
DeleteWagner treats the wheel as: A single rigid lever system, analyzed globally.
B. treats it as: A modular machine, whose internal complexity matters.
B. asserts in poetic form that Wagner’s math fails because: It ignores multiplicity. It ignores phasing. It ignores dynamic sequencing of forces.
In that context it is redundant and unnecessary for B. to separately mention pulley lreductions etc, internally or externally driven by or connected to the axle. That would stating the obvious and telling skilled mechanics and mathematicians to suck eggs.
Here are other, possibly more accurate, translations of:
Delete"If I make, in a machine, as it were only a single cross, then one will see it turn quite slowly;
scarcely rotating of itself..."
Alternative >>>> "If I use a single pulley suspended from the ceiling above one of my pm wheel's axle to lift a weight, then the axle will turn so slowly that it hardly looks like its moving..."
"...but if, on the other hand, I arrange many crosses, linkages, and weights, then the machine can run much faster.”
Alternative >>>> "...but, alternatively, if I use several pulleys mounted on cross bars inside a pulley system's blocks which are also suspended from the same place on the ceiling above a wheel's axle, then the axle can turn much more quickly as it lifts a weight."
Yes, I know it's not a verbatim alternative translation. But, contextually it makes far more sense to me. Keep in mind that the English translations that JC's translator provided us with were made from 18th century German POETIC verses! I'm sure he did his best to give us what HE considered the most probable contextual translation into modern English as possible. But, his contextual translations might not, in certain cases, have been that accurate. I suspect that is the case here and made worse by Bessler's tendency to be generally vague with his mechanical descriptions.
XXXIII (b) Wagner's childish calculation, of which he, not I, should be thoroughly ashamed.
DeleteChatGPT Translation of the German.
If beside a wheel of twelve ells (NB)
I wished to place one of six ells,
then—if I chose to do so—
the smaller machine would, in an instant,
possess far greater power, force, and capability
than the larger work of art.
That is to say: I can place two or three models,
or even more, upon a single axle.
This may also serve as further information:
I contrive the machines in such a way that,
let a wheel be as large as one wishes,
I can make the force—little, more, or much—
multiply (as the square),
and calculate it out.
For if I make here, for example,
a work with, as it were, only a single cross,
one will see it turn very slowly,
hardly rotating of itself at all;
but if, on the other hand, I arrange
many crosses, linkages, and weights,
then the machine can run much faster.
This utterly overturns Wagner’s calculation;
yes, the shame attributed to me
is taken away from me
and turned back upon him.
John Collins AP translator.
XXXIII (b) Wagner's childish calculation, of which he, not I, should be thoroughly ashamed.
At this point Wagner seeks to correct a point made by my patron. The point concerns the power of my machines. Wagner calculates the total power of these three wheels, and says that the figure given should be reduced considerably - so much so, in fact, that good Master Orffyreus, the great mathematician, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself! Ashamed also that I, Orffyreus, did not force my patron to write the correct figure. Listen, Wagner, I'm not your slave! Who is right? You're the one who calculates badly! So I'm to be excused, having done nothing wrong that reflects on my patron.
Please note carefully these facts:- If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis. Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!
Draw your own long bow's if you must.
I think this section was Bessler's attempt to make Wagner's analysis of his wheels' power output look unreliable. There were, no doubt, various factors that could determine the final CONSTANT power output of one of Bessler's wheels. But, I think Wagner's basic premise was correct. Bessler's wheels all had very low constant power outputs. That was obvious to the engineers potential buyers sent in to test the wheels. Their constant power output was far less than that of even a small water or windmill. Yes, they could, in the absence of a mechanical failure, run day and night, but that gimmick alone just did not justify Bessler's exorbitant asking price for his invention in the minds of the potential buyers. That is the real reason that Bessler never found a buyer. Some think that if only that rich Russian czar, "Peter the Great", had made it to see his wheel, then a quick sale would have been made. Not necessarily. The czar's own engineers would have reached the same conclusion about the wheel's low constant power output. But, maybe the czar would have purchased it as a curiosity to inspire technical students back in Russia to get more into inventing? We'll never know now.
DeleteI have fired the last arrow from my long bow and now leave it to others to fire theirs. →→→๐ฆ
Thank you anon for the most recent posts. Excellent comments and I can’t argue against any of them, although I do believe thst Bessler threw in a few hints, not completely unrelated to his own desire to drop his oh-so-suble hints at the actual mechanisms. His inclusion of exactly what was in his wheel, i.e., pulleys, crosses and weights.
DeleteJC
Pulleys implies cord, rope or wire.
DeleteJC
It's possible that Bessler was himself delusional about the potential for his wheels. He had struggled incredibly for about a decade to find a runner and then, when it happened, he got carried away by the excitement and imagined they had unlimited potential. Theoretically that would be true, but practically it wasn't. Businessmen are very practical people. When they looked at Bessler's wheels and got past the initial surprise of them, they apparently did not see them as being that profitable. The arrival of the new steam technology also made Bessler's wheels seem even less likely to be profitable. But, whether his wheels could be profitable or not, I think he should still be honored for having finally found a design for a working pm machine. The best way we "Bessler pm wheel chasers" today can honor him is by finally figuring out how he did it. Once that is done, more people around the world will become familiar with his life and inventions and maybe we will even see some quality movies made to depict them.
DeleteBrad
Brad, there was an interesting Brazilian movie made in 1998 that told the story of an obsessed craftsman in a small rural village that was trying to build a giant perpetual motion wheel inside of an old grain mill. The film goes into his explanation of how it is supposed to work. Anyone interested in watching it can see it on youtube here:
Deletehttps://youtu.be/2DEqwE9v0yM
Unfortunately, the film is in Spanish, but you can use the settings on the video player to autogenerate English subtitles. This film has a surprise ending and the craftsman does finally succeed in getting his wheel to work!
Only 54 hours to go 'til the beginning of February 5th and JC's 81st birthday over there in the UK!
Delete๐ฅณ๐๐๐๐
LOL! You can do all of the hour countdowns you want anon 18:11. But, mark my words, JC's 81st birthday will come and go, and you all will still see NOTHING from him! Right now he's busy trying to come up with a plausible sounding excuse for his soon to be announced "delay". It will be something like his presentation still needs a bit more polishing to make it as understandable as possible or there's a sudden family emergency requiring his full attention or he's got some health issue that has confined him to bed or etc., etc., etc. However, he might even actually upload a single blurry photo with some colored marks on it or a crude paint drawing to make it look like he's fulfilling his promise, made repeatedly for months so far, to show all BEFORE his upcoming 81st birthday. But, don't be fooled by this maneuver. That photo or drawing will just be a crumb intended to suppress all of the complaints that will be dumped on him because, yet again, he has strung people along for months here with another false promise to make his FINAL GREAT REVEAL. He'll then tell us that "all will be revealed" before the end of February "whether it works or not". When the end of February comes and goes with nothing more being revealed, his next promise will be to "finally" show all by maybe before the end of April "at the latest". After that deadline is missed, he'll then just say, as he has many times before, that he will "soon" reveal all and everyone here needs to learn how to be more patient. Mark my words, you will see nothing from him that can be accurately evaluated this year or ever. Now watch and see how right I will be!
Delete(I hope everyone likes my new username which I will use from now on as I continue to make my so far 100% accurate predictions about JC's bizarre behavior on this blog.)
The Sage
And right there is a fine example & the trouble with John letting people post anonymously. It may boost blog traffic but it also is a haven for bottom feeders intent on racing to the bottom.
DeleteEither "The Sage" is FOS or John is FOS. If one is honest, the truth is that John has been FOS for YEARS now! But, I think THIS time is going to be different and we will see something more than a "crumb" from him. I still have faith in John. However, IF The Sage is right AGAIN this time, then I think my faith in John will quickly go down the drain. We need more than excuses and crumbs from him. We need to finally see if his discovery of the Bessler "workaround" is real or not.
DeleteHmm...that Sage guy is right about one thing. Last year JC promised to reveal something to us and all we got to see was a photo of one of his fiberboard discs that I remember seeing here years ago. It wasn't anything new and just a crumb and a stale one. He then said he still could not reveal anything more because he had to "prove" the design first, but he was vague when it came to explaining exactly what "prove" meant. I think we were all supposed to assume it meant that he finally had a runner.
DeleteIt's possible that he now finally realizes that he's not going to build a five lever runner no matter how long he tries. What he is probably most concerned about now is his claim to have discovered what he calls the "Bessler Workaround Principle". That is actually far more important than any poorly made wheel he can slap together in his garage (or is it a garden shed of some sort?). If that principle proves to be valid and can be used on any wheel to make it pm then that would indeed be a major discovery.
That's correct Anon 01:16. If John has found a bona fide " Bessler Workaround Principle " ( i.e. a unique Mechanical Application ) that has the potential to keep a wheels internal forces continually unbalanced then the case of Bessler's mystery is largely closed & John's name & part in history is cemented in place alongside Bessler's ( re. the moniker " Collins Bessler Wheel " would be entirely appropriate ). However John's personal journey would not be quite done & dusted. Not until the Workaround Principle is validated independently as fit-for-purpose & workable. And that is where we can help him find his ultimate answers & closure on his Principle! So let's give him some respect, and time & space, to make his case without taking anonymous cheap shots from the sidelines & adding more pressure than he is already feeling with his upcoming disclosure.
DeleteHRH
"So let's give him some respect, and time & space, to make his case..." Sounds nice, BUT he's had "time and space" for YEARS now...how much more does he need?!
DeleteDefiant "Sage," don't you know that a wise man has to be earned?
DeleteREPLY! in front of everyone.
Go ahead, we're waiting to see what you've accomplished besides blaming John for your failure. REPLY! Friend?
Nah, he's more comfortable sitting in an armchair slinging anonymous arrows and taking cheap shots. He couldn't find his arse if his head was on backwards, let alone help analyze and validate a mechanical principal for John. Don't expect any positive contribution from him.
DeleteSay what you will about the Sage, but the fact is that, so far, ALL of his predictions about JC have been 100% correct! I'm hoping that his latest one will be his first failure. If that happens, I'm sure he'll disappear quickly. But, it's up to John to prove him wrong.
DeleteI'll fight for our friendship.
DeleteDon't think you're so anonymous in your chair; it's a delusion.
You agreed to let me call you whatever I want for pizza and strange toppings I can't provide. So listen and be grateful, because you're very "interesting" in public.
John constantly offers authoritative sources, but he doesn't feel sorry for himself. That's the difference.
Friendship doesn't mean uncritically agreeing on everything; it's a hard effort to talk to each other about everything, and when the time comes, it means the help I've given you now.
Sam Peppiat, are you reading this forum? I have a question for you, hasn't your five minutes passed? Because my hour has given me more time and I want to share my observations with you. Are you interested?
DeleteIf JC does not reveal WITHIN the next 41 hours, then he won't be keeping his promise to reveal BEFORE his birthday! If that happens expect "The Sage" to immediately pop in and say "SEE...I TOLD YOU SO!" That's MY prediction! ๐ณ
DeleteMy friend, I'd be happy to share my observations with you, if you'd like, before revealing them to Sam? Is that what you desire? Then ask for them, or wait for an official inquiry regarding my observations, for Sam Peppiat, which I think is inevitable, but I'll see what happens.
DeleteOnly 30.25 hours to go until it's JC's 81st birthday! Will we see anything concerning the "Bessler Workaround Principle" before that day arrives? The Sage says "no", but my gut tells me "yes"! Then again, maybe I've been eating too much pizza? Nah...you can never have too much pizza! ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
DeleteWe here are on GMT so its about 48 hours til my birthday.๐
DeleteJC
I think pizza guy WAS using GMT and counting the hours to the beginning of Thursday, February 5 at a fraction of a second after midnight and not to noon of that day. Right now I figure about 28 hours to the beginning of Thursday, February 5th at a fraction of a second after midnight.
DeleteIf john posts at midnight it’s 6 pm here but I doubt he plans to stay up to celebrate at midnight.
ReplyDeleteThe current UK GMT time is 12:35 AM, Wednesday, February 4, 2026. JC now has LESS than 24 hrs to prove it is The Sage who is FOS and not JC. This is getting interesting! ๐ซข
DeleteI don't think he'll reveal anything for a simple reason. He really has nothing to reveal. All he's got is a poorly made nonrunner and a lot of hints about a workaround principle that he thinks can explain how his nonrunner is supposed to work? That makes no sense to me and I find myself agreeing with that sage guy that we won't be seeing anything from him anytime soon or even ever. I think all he'll do now is lay low for a while and then maybe a few weeks from now start talking again about proving his wheel and his workaround principle. Nothing will change with him and anyone here thinking it will and he is going to eventually reveal all is mistaken imo.
DeletePeut importe si cela fonctionne ou pas, le principal est que John nous rรฉvรจle la direction de ses recherches et les indices qui l'ont motivรฉ!
DeleteOn croise les doigts pour votre rรฉussite John et bon anniversaire.
Shadow.
No matter if it works or not, the main thing is that John reveals to us the direction of his research and the clues that motivated him!
Let’s keep our fingers crossed for your success John and happy birthday.
Shadow.
Thank you Shadow for your kind and reasonable comment.
DeleteJC
Only 2.5 hours to go 'til JC's B'day!!! ๐ฅณ๐ฅณ๐ฅณ๐๐ฅณ๐ฅณ๐ฅณ
Delete1st HAPPY BIRTHDAY here to JOHN...with a specially shaped cake just for him!
Deletehttps://postimg.cc/vxD0vPq5
(it's supposed to be pentagon shaped!)
๐ด
DeleteWow, looks like a fire hazard! ๐ Thank you - it looks delicious if I can just beat a path through the flames.๐
DeleteJC
This should help...but you might need two of them!
Deletehttps://postimg.cc/w3xb8zHt
That AI really messed up the fire extinguisher. It shows the chemical spraying out of the wrong side of the handle!
DeleteHappy birthday John!
ReplyDeletePLMKRN
Thank you! ๐
DeleteJC
Happy Birthday John !
ReplyDeleteDon't listen to the naysayers and continue your research. The most important thing is to enjoy what you do. Thank you for sharing and have a great day !
I remain convinced that the solution lies somewhere here...
Robert . . .
Thank you Robert, I think my skin gets thicker with age.๐
ReplyDeleteJC