I’m conscious that some people are criticising my expressed certainty about the clues I’ve presented here. I understand completely and despite my certainty, of course I realise interpretation is a difficult task unavoidably involving one’s personal bias and viewpoint.
The kind of clues I’ve presented tend to be mainly concerned with the drawings but there are some pieces of text where I have offered my interpretation, based on my knowledge of Bessler.
When I’ve challenged comments which dismiss my conclusions it is not meant to inflame discussion, it's just that I have arrived at my personal convictions after much deliberation and to have it routinely dismissed apparently with little consideration is mildly annoying, but I accept that I have probably over reacted. So apologies to all. I do actually appreciate all comments both for and against.
I posted a lot of Bessler’s coded clues with my interpretations included, on my web site at
http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/
These are easily seen and understood but we still find it difficult to make use of these interpretations in preparing a Bessler wheel.
Given that Bessler told us that he had left clues to help us find his solution we should pay attention to every clue we can find and try to obtain a particular configuration which offers a potential path to the solution. That is why I’ve offered so much material with that aim in mind.
There are a number of clues which are not necessarily subject to the vagaries of interpretation, but which are not being regarded as helpful. I merely point to the staggering quantity of pointers to the number five. It has an always seemed to me that there is a curious avoidance of the more obvious conclusion that 5 mechanisms is a key ingredient. Further to that, a number of clues suggest 7 or 9 mechanisms. Surely the undoubted suggestion is that only an odd number of mechanisms will do. Add to that thought, the actual instruction that the weights act in pairs seems to me to fit very well with an odd number of weighted levers.
But in the end we have to find a concept which shows how we obtain a continuously rotating wheel, which consumes enough energy from a falling weight to supply more than enough energy to lift the fallen weight back up to its pre-fall position.
So before we can find the right configuration from Bessler’s clues we need the actual concept which supports the non-stop rotation of the wheel.
My previous suggestion is still, in my opinion, the only way achieve a working Bessler wheel and it is this.
The only source of energy available is that generated by the falling weight. But how do we get enough energy to return that weight to its starting point?
There are two features available from the action of the falling weight. The first is to use the potential energy generated during the actual fall to guide the weight to the most advantageous landing point on the rim of the wheel. This is achieved through the use of the scissor mechanisms.
The second feature requires us to configure the wheel to make the falling weight land further back along the rim of the wheel, than is usually achievable with a simple pivoting weighted lever. This would cause the wheel to rotate further forward thus creating a larger retrograde motion in the previously fallen wheel. This would reduce the height needed to return the fallen weight back to it pre-fall position.
Bessler stressed how useful scissor mechanisms are, and as he commented they are like crabs in that they work best when they move horizontally, and crabs are designed to move sideways too. Because the scissor mechanisms are able to react to variations in the horizontal attitude, they can expand or shrink contract as their angles varies.
If you look at my previous attempt you will see the scissor mechanism. Where they begin to act is a problem I need to discover the solution, but also how large should they be and do they work with just one scissor or two like my model.
Finally they need to work in pairs which requires cords between two levers- but which ones?
One cord must be fixed to the falling lever, but the other end needs to be fixed to a lever which actually needs a bit of a lift, just 30 degrees is suggested by Bessler.
The concept I have described should work, if the parts are correctly placed, but to date I have failed. My skills and materials have depreciated due to my age and time. I can no longer find the energy to test my theory.
There is a lot of material left to study but I’ll get around to publishing it one day
Over to you guys!
JC
Quite unfortunately, there is much vagueness in the descriptions Bessler gives us of HOW his wheels worked. As a result everyone who reads his descriptions will come up with his own belief about how his wheels worked. Generally, almost everyone thinks they were overbalanced wheels and had eight weights that landed somewhere on the descending side. After that the opinions quickly diverge from each other and each person can cite his favorite quote here or there that he found to support his opinion. Some will read that Bessler apparently liked scissor mechs, so they think he must have used them. Others will read of a "connectedness principle" and think the weights were on levers connected together with cords. Still others will read of a twanging noise made during a demonstration and reach the conclusion that his mechanics used stretched or compressed springs in some way. He shows pendulums in his drawings? Maybe he also used them inside of his wheels? Those who like numbers will find meaning in the various numbers that show up in his drawings and base their opinions on them.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day none of these beliefs mean anything unless and until they are subjected to some sort of testing. That means building or simming that works. Building tends to be laborious and time consuming and one can always find a dozen excuses why he should put it off "until later" which is why it can take weeks to months to get anything ready for a critical test. Simming is cheap and quick, but at best is only a prelude to actually building. Unfortunately, simming is a skill that few will make the effort to acquire. They often reason that Bessler didn't sim and he still got results so why should I bother? Yes, that is true, but he was fanatical about building which not something today's builder is. He can spend far more time online chatting away about what he plans to do on blogs like this one than in his shop actually building anything!
JC wrote: "...I do actually appreciate all comments both for and against."
That's good to know because, until you actually have a build that works, there will always be some who will challenge your clues and your reasoning...just as you will do to them. But, it's still a good thing to try to prove one's beliefs by citing various quotes from the Bessler books and letters about him. That leads to debates and they can change one's beliefs over time. When one is on the wrong train, he doesn't have to stay on it and ride it to nowhere. He can get off and board another train that might take him closer to the destination he seeks. People hate admitting they were wrong about anything and can cling to a belief far longer than they should have trying to justify it. But there is something worse than that which is being proven to have been wrong by others who were riding on the right train which one previously rejected and refused to board. 🚂🚃🚃🚃
Yes, chronic lethargy can keep one from doing anything on his pm wheel build and making zero progress as a result. The treatment? Caffeine can help or, if you're rich, you can just hand it all over to a local machine shop and let them sweat out the details for you. But, rather than use caffeine or spend a small fortune, I've found that watching his short Disney video can help energize me and get me back in the shop again:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZtiAUC-FYU
Try it and see if it helps you.
That lively female conductor jumping around in that kids' video is a dancer named Genevieve Goings who is also a 2023 Grammy Award winning artist and producer. She originally got started doing voices for video games and then got involved in a Disney project to make educational videos for young kids like "Choo-Choo Soul". This video which combines live actors with computer generated animations was made sometime during 2012 or 2013 and was spliced into other shows for kids on the Disney Channel. She's probably the most energetic she ever was in this particular video. She was about age 32 or 33 at the time it was made. Her black partner who plays the train's engineer is named "DC" in the videos and Constantine Abramson in real life. He is also a dancer and "beatboxer" which is someone who can imitate percussion instruments using his voice. That is done in some rap songs. Goings is still active and continues to create family-oriented music and content with her own production company. You can learn more about her on her website which is at:
Deletehttps://www.genevievegoings.com
Everyone has their own song. Think about it and change your energy, and maybe you'll become wiser. Apparently, you're a long-time resident of this forum? Where does so much hatred come from, that's how I feel.
DeleteYou should learn from John, who is a true master because he knows when to back off. There's no way to say that about you, because you can't even answer what you're looking for on this forum. How can you achieve more? What you've achieved is the pinnacle of your knowledge.
True words flowing from your true inner self will slowly resolve everything, because that's where the heart of gold beats.
Replikare, we're all listening.
@anon 2:06
DeleteThanks for the link...very energizing...i've looked at sevreal of the choo choo soul vids so far...i found this one where the steam train goes under water and the girl turns into a mermaid! 🧜♀️
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqA5KnO3Pv0&list=RDzqA5KnO3Pv0&start_radio=1
Those choo-choo kiddie videos are cute, but I want to see more clues here. Where are they???
Delete@anon 19:56. But why would you need any more clues? The big mystery has finally been solved for all of us with that Gustov pm wheel birthday gift for JC in the last blog. It's now just a matter of building it and letting it run. There is no more need to read the Bessler books or hunt around for any clues in his drawings. Those days are now over forever in this new post-Gustov pm wheel world of ours.
Delete"Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah..." Lol! If my current wheel works, I'll be singing that song for the rest of my life!
DeleteThe world of colorful fairy tales is instructive.
DeleteEnjoy a comfortable armchair.
John must be overjoyed to finally see his dream of a five lever pm wheel realized with the arrival of that Gustov wheel. Despite all of the negativity he had heaped upon his ideas here, John kept the faith that one day such a design would appear and now here it is! I agree, anon 06:43, his well earned philosopher's armchair now awaits him. His search for any other design now ends. I truly envy him. 💺☺️
Deleteanon 19:56 wants to see Johns clues on how to find the attachment positions for his pulleys and ropes
DeleteHmm...an interesting dilemma presents itself. That five lever pm wheel was shown to us by Gustov and, one assumes, that he designed the wheel. But, he freely GAVE it to John as a no strings attached birthday gift. So, doesn't that now mean that the design belongs to John even though he did not personally create it? Should we still call it the "Gustov Wheel" or now call it the "Collins Wheel"? If John obtained a patent on it, the patent office would consider it to be John's wheel and not Gustov's wheel.
Deleteffs away with the fairies again . call it the g or c wheel . sim it if you want . it is still deader than a dead duck .
DeleteNo one can say the Gustov wheel is a dead duck until, at a minimum, an accurate sim of it shows it cannot stay OB during rotation. That has yet to be determined.
Deletestart simming it loser or do you expect others to always do your work for you
Deletehey anon 18:24, why aren't YOU simming it even BIGGER loser?!
DeleteJC:
ReplyDelete'Given that Bessler told us that he had left clues to help us find his solution we should pay attention to every clue we can find and try to obtain a particular configuration which offers a potential path to the solution. '
Where did he say he left clues other than the MT drawings?
'Surely the undoubted suggestion is that only an odd number of mechanisms will do. Add to that thought, the actual instruction that the weights act in pairs seems to me to fit very well with an odd number of weighted levers.'
5 does occur a lot. But that doesn't necessarily mean he meant he used 5 mechanisms. And if they had to work in pairs, most people interpret that to mean an even rather than an odd numbers of mechs.
'The second feature requires us to configure the wheel to make the falling weight land further back along the rim of the wheel, than is usually achievable with a simple pivoting weighted lever. This would cause the wheel to rotate further forward thus creating a larger retrograde motion in the previously fallen wheel. This would reduce the height needed to return the fallen weight back to it pre-fall position.'
The weights' 'pre-fall position' can't be reduced. The pre-fall positions in a gravity enabled wheel would have to be *higher* each cycle to turn a wheel. So the height would have to be increased.
Less height = less energy.
Just in case anyone thinks I would try to take advantage of Gustov by taking credit for his design - I wouldn’t, and I decided way back before I had published any of my Bessler books, if I was fortunate enough to build a successful Bessler’s wheel, I would share it openly and not try to patent it
ReplyDeleteJC
You might graciously not want to "take advantage of Gustov by taking credit for his design", but he gave that design to you. It is now YOURS whether you directly created it or not. And, when one thinks about it, maybe Gustov would not have come up with the design in the first place if he had not come here over the years and saw how insistent you were about Bessler using five levers in his wheels? Maybe his design is just the end product of all of those many clues and codes that YOU found and put on your various websites in the past?! If so, then one could say that, at a minimum, you "inspired" the design that Gustov came up with. In fact, one could go further and even say that it was YOUR research that actually created the design and that Gustov only drew it for you! Using this logic, then you JC ARE the true de facto original creator of the Gustov wheel and it totally BELONGS to you! Maybe that is the real reason he decided to give it to you as a belated birthday present? He knew it was really yours all along! I propose that from now on we call it the "Bessler - Collins - (Gustov) Wheel" or just the "BC(G) Wheel" for short.
DeleteMr Maybe again. You seem to enjoy gaslighting & spending time writing JC. Maybe you should analyze or simulate it. Maybe you already know it is a dead duck.
DeleteI kind of agree with anon 17:45. If I told a machine shop how to build something for me and they did build it, then while it's their build but it's really still my invention. I'd like to hear what Gustov has to say about all of this. Did he get all of his ideas for the wheel's design from JC or not?
DeleteJC must have analyzed it to be a runner to put it in his blog!
Deletewatch and learn
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nehSgljIVHA&t=13s
@ anon 20:50
DeleteThere was a quick analysis done on the last blog showing that the "BC(G) wheel" was OB, but that does not mean it will stay that way when it's released. Telling if it will needs a sim which we do not have yet. I also think that the design appealed to JC because he liked seeing one show up here using five weights for a change. If Gustov admitted he based the design entirely on clues AND interpretations of them that JC provided, then I would have no problem considering it to be JC's creation.
I think all of the clues are there including Besslers Little Book. It is a matter of interpretation but I personally feel your sizzor design will “null”.
DeleteTo much talk about gift wheel here...I did made it after seeing only the JC clues for the years...without them no wheel from me. It is his wheel forevr now...you can call it what you like.
Deleteyour friend Gustov
@ anon 23:52
DeleteHand drawn static drawings of a wheel can be analyzed to show a displaced cog in any position. It would be unusual if it didn't have one. You don't need a sim to analyze what you can do by a hand drawing analysis. It has been said here many times. Incrementally rotate and draw the wheel and recalculate the overbalancing or underbalancing for each partially rotated drawing. Average it out. Just because this one has some spring connectors between levers makes virtually no difference to how you statically calculate its average OB. Then if you watched the video above you can see that spring wheels like this do not behave any differently from ordinary lever wheels. The springs initiate early movement and then retard movement. They give and they take. As they are rotated or gain in rpm the cog moves further and further to the ASCENDING side due to the time taken for the levers to move to new positions. This gets WORSE and WORSE the faster it is forced to rotate and is a physical fact. What a sim can show seamlessly is a visual analysis of the cog position during an acceleration or forced constant rotation, just like the above video on YouTube showed for many so called OB wheel types. If a static analysis looks good for falling levers, whether spring pulled and pushed or not, then a dynamic analysis where it is gaining or has a constant rpm will be woeful. Then the motorized rotation is turned off and it is free to coast and slowdown and eventually keel under its own gravitational steam. Especially if some friction losses are added for proxy work. The g or c wheel is no exception.
Since no one else has stepped forward to try simming the Gustav or "BC(G)" wheel, I think I'll take a go at it. Here's a screenshot of my wm2d workspace showing the beginning construction of the sim model in progress. Should take another day or so to complete and get some results.
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/bNh8N0Rb/Gustov-wheel-sim-in-progress.jpg
The Sim Man
You showed us the animations, great, what are we supposed to learn?
DeleteNow tell us what you think is unusual about the first animation.
What wasn't known before?
Congratulations on your courage in taking on the Gustav wheel simulation.
@anon 07:03
DeleteI don't know what animations you are referring to. I don't do animations, I do sims...big difference. My only goal in simming the Gustov / BC(G) wheel is to see if it has the potential to keep the CoG of its five weights on the wheel's descending side during rotation. However, even if my sim shows it cannot do that, I would still encourage others to try simming it just in case there is some flaw in my sim which I missed. It's best not to base a final judgement of a design on a single sim if possible.
Anyway, here is a quick image for everyone's inspection. All springs are installed at this point. However, the more I look at this design, the more I realize that it's going to require some VERY precise balancing if it is to work and keep the CoG of its five weights on the descending side of the wheel which will be its right side.
https://i.postimg.cc/5txpswr4/Progress-on-Gustov-wheel-so-far.jpg
The Sim Man
Nice to see you working on it, STM. I'm curious to see if it is worth all of the hype it's been generating.
DeleteBad news to report.
DeleteI completed the most accurate sim I could make of the Gustov (aka BC(G)) wheel and spent about an hour or so trying to balance its levers as carefully as I could. The model wheel's diameter is 6 ft, the gray ball weights are 5 lbs each, the springs have an unstretched length of 0.25 ft and a spring constant of 0.4 lb/ft, the ropes are 2.158449 ft in length. Other than the five 5 lb gray ball weights, all other parts of the wheel have very low and insignificant masses. Here's a short gif I made of the running sim:
https://i.postimg.cc/7LBtFymc/Failure-of-the-Gustov-Wheel.gif
I let the sim run for about 15 seconds just to show that the design only keels. I thought for a moment that it might take off because it does accelerate for the first 5 seconds due to the cog being located a short distance onto the model wheel's right descending side. But, despite my best efforts, I could not get the cog of the five ball weights to stay on the descending side of the model wheel so that an overbalance would be maintained.
Sorry Gustov and JC, but right now this looks to me like another dead duck for our growing collection of them. However, I would invite others to trying simming the design to see if they can get better results than I did.
The Sim Man
Yeah, TSM, it's just another dead duck. It's too bad because it could have given JC a reason to keep proclaiming Bessler used a five lever design in his pm wheels. Now it looks like that option is off the table and there is no Plan B. But then again, maybe the problem isn't a wheel only having five levers, but that the ones in Gustov's wheels are not connected together the right way? Also designs with springs in them tend to be a headache to build or sim and that is probably why we see so few pm wheel builders using them. But, Bessler did use them and I don't think we'll ever see a working pm wheel unless it does use them.
DeleteThanks for doing the simming on that one, TSM. I was sure it would be another nonrunner and as your sim shows it is. That will save anyone the trouble of actually trying to build it. Even though he put the design at the end of his last blog, I got the feeling John was not too thrilled with it mainly because there were no scissors in it. Meanwhile, we're still all waiting for those "never before revealed" clues he promised us months ago. So far, all we're getting is just recycled material from past blogs.
DeleteIn this blog he wrote:
"Surely the undoubted suggestion is that only an odd number of mechanisms will do. Add to that thought, the actual instruction that the weights act in pairs seems to me to fit very well with an odd number of weighted levers."
Maybe John considers that "undoubted", but I think almost everyone else here has a lot of doubts about it. To me, Bessler saying that the weights acted in pairs implies that when any two weights were acting, they were on opposite sides of a wheel's axle which is where they would have to be located if their action was shifting their cog onto a wheel's descending side. That means for a given number of such active pairs, the total number of weights MUST always be even. I don't see any other possibility and this would exclude any designs using 5, 7, or 9 weights. To me it's a mystery why John does not see this. Let's hope those "never before revealed" clues he was hinting about will explain his thinking...if he ever gets around to revealing them to us, that is.
anon 05:55
Delete"Meanwhile, we're still all waiting for those "never before revealed" clues he promised us months ago."
To be fair, the trail of crumb clues John was following ran out when he reached the pulley and cord placement positions.
Thank you TSM, I look forward to seeing the cords connected. I’m hoping to post my own image with the connecting cords shown. I’ve also designed a similar wheel to my last one but with a simpler design.
DeleteI’m also busy organising a big family get together for my wife’s 80th birthday on Friday, so I’m running even later than usual! I should be back soon.
JC
Enjoy your big party, John, and happiest of birthdays to your wife. When things settle down again and you're ready we will all be right here eagerly awaiting the disclosure of the new and improved version of your pentagon wheel. Meanwhile, keep following those breadcrumb clues and maybe at the end of the trail you will find what you have been seeking these many years:
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/YCPw4RK2/john-s-breadcrumb-trail.jpg
Not TSM here !
Delete@TSM 00:28 > very nice work with your sim and analysis of the Gustov Wheel (no cigar as you explain) -> you asked for others to also sim it -> here are my versions which completely align with your sim predictions and analysis .
It is worth noting that IMO the Gustov Wheel is Ai generated because the detail is not proportional nor symmetrical -> as you know when building a sim or technical drawing it is very regularized .
What I see is the sims are run and initially left to seek their balanced keel position , as doing so the constant rpm motor is briefly turned on and then off again (-10 rpm) , and they coast and then progressively slow down and will eventually stop at the keel position again -> I have turned on Air Resistance to quickly show the slow down trend in the rpm graph -> the others things of note is that if you watch the lever movements from stop to stop it is very obvious that the cog can only be on the ascending side for most of the time (anti-cw torque) -> and that 'springs' used like this simple application give and take away equally for no net torque benefit -> also , that even at a motor driven constant rpm the cog position will not come across to the descending side , as you clearly said -> included is a cord and spring controlled sim as per the original G Wheel , then a sim with no cords where they are swapped out for green springs , as a comparison -> both are dead ducks and 6 feet under , whether free running or motor driven and then released , which a static analysis would have shown without the time you put into building a sim -> good effort anyway .
https://i.postimg.cc/Pf2Bn55z/Gustov1.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/xdDZ3k6J/Gustov2.gif
It looks like the cords in your first sim do nothing as far as lifting the ascending side levers is concerned...same goes for the springs you replaced the cords with in your second sim. In both sims, it is the spring connected between a weight and the wheel's rim that does all of the lifting. I think TSM's sim is more accurate because it shows the cord from the 7:30 lever to the 12:30 lever actually lifting the 7:30 lever. Unfortunately that does not create sufficient overbalance to turn the wheel enough so that the next pair of cord connected levers can repeat the process.
Delete"...both are dead ducks and 6 feet under..."
Might be more appropriate to say that they are now both 6 feet UP and on the TOP of our ever growing pile of dead duck designs! 🦆🦆➡️⛰️
Have a close look at the original gustov wheel diagram. The 3 o'cl is against the stop & the 10 o'cl it is roped to is half way between its stops at about a 30 degree spread between stops . The 7 o'cl is on its stop and the 1 o'cl is half way between stops (& more vertical). Ropes are at a length that allow the movement, as it was drawn . The springs do the main lifting as they are designed to do. In a sim ropes and springs rest length may be different but all ropes have the same rest length and all springs have the same rest length & spring constant. The gustov wheel had different T shape levers with one side of the T truncated which changes the dynamics slightly. How did your sim go? Deader than a dodo ?
DeleteIt's encouraging to see more people producing sims on this blog then having everything just be opinions and guesswork. That will come in handy when John finally shows us his "simplified" BWA 2.0 wheel. I also think he made a big mistake by using those scissor mechs in a wheel, but he obviously thought they could provide some benefit. I assume in his simplified wheel that those scissors will be gone. But, what to replace them with? Just straight levers? I've seen so many straight lever designs over the years that did not work that it's hard for me to believe he's found one that could work. But, time (and sims) will tell us if he's been following the right "breadcrumb clue" path or not through that forest of Bessler hints we've all reading over and over again for years now.
Deletetelescoping levers lol
Deletemts 26 & 27
DeleteHere is my G Wheel sim without any motor forced rotation. I have graphed the average x-axis position of the 5 yellow weights.
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/SKxHcP7F/Gustov3.gif
Hi John, I am sorry to hear you are slowing down. I hope we all continue to benefit from your words and knowledge here for many years to come.
DeleteI think maybe your focus on the number 5 is misplaced. If we can agree that JB was leaving clues to preserve his claim to a working design, it seems that his priority would be the attributes of the components themselves (HOW they worked) and not that there are 5 of them [or 7 or 9]. Put differently, when Karl said "it" was simple and that he was surprised that no one had thought of "it" before, what "it" was is far more important than the fact that there were 5 (or 7 or 9) of them. It seems like JB would make this his priority.
To anon 25th March, 08:46 thanks for your kind good wishes for my wife’s birthday.
DeleteTo all, I don’t really plan to slow down, but procrastination is the thief of time and I find time passing at an alarming rate, and accelerating it seems! I will maintain this blog as long as I can and at least until someone produces a working wheel, and after, obviously.
I will find a way to post images at the end of each blog, but maybe retrospectively sometimes, unless I can find a way to add a separate page for each blog post.
JC
I like the idea of sticking any images linked to in the comments at the end of your blogs to highlight them if it seems like they show something interesting. If you just put them all on some separate page somewhere, they will just be passed over most likely.
DeletePS - yes I can add a page and I’ll simply add any images to it unless you request me not to. It will provide a permanent record of images linked on my blog posts. At the top of the right side panel is a link called Bessler’s Books, it will be somewhere near there. I’ll probably call it wheel pics, or something similar.
DeleteJC
I don’t know if I can link them, I’ll try any way.
DeleteJC
A separate image collection with a conspicuous link at the top of every blog sounds like a good idea. Right now a lot of members are maintaining their own private collections of images. But with a separate page anyone can access them and maybe get some ideas for designs or even clues in the Bessler drawings.
Delete@JC
DeleteI looked through my rogues' gallery of failed pm wheel designs and found some for you to consider to get you started on your latest project:
1.) The Edward Somerset Wheel:
https://i.postimg.cc/mD8sscxQ/Another-Somerset-Wheel-Reconstruction.png
2.) A wheel by "Still Angry":
https://i.postimg.cc/pT16CKMT/B-WHEEL-SECRET.jpg
3.) Some sort of heat engine wheel:
https://i.postimg.cc/x8DFBn8g/Bessler-s-Secret-Trick.jpg
4.) The hoaxed Schnickelbacher wheel:
https://i.postimg.cc/gkB304yB/GS-wheel-design.jpg
5.) The Dimentia Wheel:
https://i.postimg.cc/4yYN2vKV/my-dimentia-pm-wheel.jpg
6.) Techstuf's Wheel:
https://i.postimg.cc/rmKK723K/Techstuf-PM-Wheel.jpg
My favorite of these is Techstuf's wheel which looks like it should work. Many did try to build it years ago without success. Eventually Techstuf admitted that, although he did build it, it did not run. BUT, maybe he did not build it accurately enough?
@anon 18:35
DeleteNice little collection you got there. I agree that techstuff wheel looks like it should work. He must have got the idea for it from mt 18. Here's Bessler's note for mt 18:
"No. 18: This is the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is
different from being. In the meantime, the principle should not be disdained or entirely
disregarded, for it says more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it
at the appropriate place."
Here's my question. WHY should it "not be disdained or entirely disregarded"? What was Bessler hinting about with that remark? Could this be some sort of proof that Bessler did use springs in his wheels?
Exactly - and the spiral clothing of the D men in the 'center of frame' twin set C & D toys of the Toy's Page , imo -f
DeleteAnd the very hard to go past coup de grâce from the credible independent witness Wolff , writing to Leibniz " When he put the wheel onto another support and reinstalled the weights in their previous positions, he pushed down on an iron spring that gave a loud noise as it expanded upwards. "
Delete"What was Bessler hinting about with that remark?"
DeleteTo me the answer is obvious...he used springs to help lift the weights on the ascending side and maybe also pull down on them on the descending side...if that was all there was to it, then Techsuff's wheel should have worked. But there's more...you need that "connected priniciple" he also hinted about in MT. You can't just have single weights bobbing around at the ends of springs...you have to have connections like ropes between the weights somehow. He shows us flat, tapered type springs in MT 18, but I think he actually used the same kinds found in clocks and organs which were simple helical expansion springs that he attached to levers that had the weights attached to their free ends. John had no springs in his first Bessler workaround wheel...maybe that's why it failed?
Is your techstuf wheel giving you a hard time? Does it just stubbornly refuse to keep running? Here's a "quick fix" for it!
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/d1C6KssZ/improved-techstuf-wheel.jpg
You just attach another eight springs between the weights and the axle. But, make the springs weak ones. Can't afford more springs? No problem...just use cheap rubber bands! The idea is to pull the ascending side weights closer to the axle to shift the cog of the eight weights more onto the wheel's descending side.
Happy pm wheeling everyone! 🛞☺️
Thanks for that tip, anon 02:34. I never thought of using cheap rubber bands instead of springs. You got to cut costs somewhere. With all of this damn inflation the cost of tools and materials just keeps going up and up. When is it going to end?
DeleteThe clues that are useful or helpful have remained part of the mystery.
ReplyDeleteNo one has yet discovered the clues that show us how he built his wheels.
Even AI throws up its hands and admits it was an illusion.
I think that Ken B would disagree with you on that. He's quite convinced that he has found enough clues to construct working duplicates of B wheels so there is no mystery left at this time according to him. I have a diagram somewhere that I got from another website years ago that someone made that shows what the inside of the Kassal wheel looked like and supposedly it is based on the info provided in the Ken B book. If I can find that diagram I'll post it. I mentioned it a few blogs ago but was unable to find it then. I'll give it another try. It might be on a thumb drive somewhere in my office. I had a laptop die on me last year and it caused me to lose a lot of important files. I took it to a computer repair place but they were unable to retrieve the files from it. I now tell everyone to make sure they backup important files on another device because you never know when your computer is going to go to computer heaven and take all of your important files with it!
DeleteKen is not a part of the Bessler solution. His book hasn’t inspired a working device.
DeleteHe or his “supporters” can post here til the cows come home. No one cares.
No one's solution has "inspired a working device" yet and that includes JC with his much over hyped "Bessler Workaround Wheel" which now resides near the top of our dead duck pile. I give Ken B much credit for the great effort he made to find a solution for us. His huge volume is a testament to that effort and so far I haven't seen anything more convincing than what he has found. I consider it to be the "default design" in case nothing better comes along.
Delete… it doesn’t work. Ken’s duck is right there next to JC’s. He should be proud!
DeleteIIRC, Ken B is the only Bessler wheel researcher so far to ever obtain a working simulation for the design he found. No one else can make that claim. I doubt if his design will ever wind up on top of that dead duck pile. It's really for those designs by guys who don't want to be bothered simming or building because they think their superior intuition will surely lead to a runner. It won't. I expect that pile to just keep growing as the years roll by.
DeleteOmg! Will our dead duck pile ever stop growing! Soon it could be higher than the Tower of Babel!
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/dQ8PyGF0/our-growing-pile.jpg
Your recall is poor. Ken’s sim wasn’t independently verified, and without peer review, or whatever the sim equivalent is, his design is bupkis. That’s a Yiddish term meaning worthless.
DeleteKB is just one of many over decades that have claimed a working WM2D sim that no one else got to look into lol . less than worthless .
DeleteFrom reading his past yt video comments before he deleted them all a few years ago, it seems that he decided not to send off his sims to strangers who he did not know and who might not be trusted to provide valid independent verifications of the design. He seemed content to only have proven to himself that he had finally solved the Bessler wheel mystery. I think he wants people seriously interested in B's wheels to just get his book, study it, and then use the information in it to make their own builds or sims that would then convince them that the design actually works. Of course, there is no guarantee that will ever take place. Just because someone says that they built or simmed a design and that it either works or does not work really proves nothing because one can never know if they are being truthful or not. With the new AI technology, videos of "working" wheels can easily be faked. yt is currently loaded with "working" free energy videos that have all been faked and intended to keep people watching them long enough for the monetized channel to make some ad revenue for the channel owner. I think we'll be seeing a lot more of the Ken B approach in the future considering the nature of the internet. I think his discovery is really more for the future than it is for the present.
DeleteYes that is the problem isn’t it: “one can never know if they are being truthful or not”. So his sim proves nothing to anyone else.
DeleteIt seems very unlikely to me that anyone would write an eight hundred page book to promote what he knew was a nonrunning design. Ken B could easily have just made a short comment online announcing his big discovery and saved himself a lot of work. That then leaves the possibility that he became delusional during his Bessler research and only believed he had a runner when in fact he did not. That's what unfortunately turned out to be the case with JC and his "Bessler workaround" a while ago. But, again, that delusional explanation for the Ken B wheel also has problems with it. If he actually spent years making thousands of wheel sims as he claims he did to verify his interpretations of the clues that he found, then he surely would have known whether or not his sims were working properly and moving toward a final working design that would be identical to what Bessler used.
DeleteAt the moment I tend to think that he either has Bessler's design or something very close to it. I haven't obtained his book yet but plan to do so. I'll give it a slow read and then try making my own sims using the various parts specifications he provides. I'll make the sims as accurately as I can and then, finally, I will know whether or not he was delusional. I cannot accept the possibility that he was deliberately perpetrating a hoax and wrote a huge book to make it look authentic. I also don't think I will announce the results of my sims because, whatever I say, someone will claim that I am lying so why should I bother? I just want to know what the truth is for my own satisfaction.
His claims are bupkis. Anyone can claim their sim “works”, or their build works. He’s never emerged from his hole to back it up. So again, his sim proves nothing to anyone besides him.
Deletefollow the money ! his book is for sale along with his books & novels on aliens , the occult , & various others .
DeleteI recall reading a comment once by Ken B in which he mentioned that he only gets a royalty of a few dollars per new book sold with the rest going into the pockets of various middlemen. On the sale of used copies, he makes nothing. I doubt if he's getting rich off of the sale of his huge Bessler book or any of his other books. I think most of the criticism of him online comes mainly from those who, never having achieved any success with their own pm research, cannot imagine that anyone else could have found some success. It's really a very egotistical opinion that they have of themselves when you think about it which is that if they cannot solve the Bessler wheel mystery that must mean that no one else ever will either. Also, I think some are annoyed that Ken B did not immediately try to gain the approval of anyone requesting them by immediately sending him all of the copies of his private sim files. By declining such requests, he's basically saying that he neither seeks nor needs anyone else's approval of his research because the only thing that really matters to him is his own approval of the results which he obviously had or he wouldn't have devoted such a large volume to it. Actually, I might be doing the same thing if I was him. I do agree with anon 02:43 that the Ken B wheel can serve as a default design if none better comes along and so far, with possible the exception of that Techstuf wheel, I haven't seen any that look better to me. I wish him well with his design in the future. 🤞🍀
DeleteI can give you the money to buy the book so you can sim it lol
DeleteIf his sim was an actual runner, someone , somewhere, somehow, would have built it and reaped the rewards of being the first to actually build a PM wheel. It generated no such enthusiasm in the PM world. It's not a runner. If it walks like a dead duck and talks like a dead duck, it's a dead duck.
Delete"It generated no such enthusiasm in the PM world."
DeleteI wouldn't be too sure about that. There have been many on this blog who did obtain KB's book and were impressed with the design he found. The leading numerologist here, SoS, also obtained a copy and said he agreed with about 95% of the clue analysis KB did and describes in the volume and which led him to the design he eventually proved was correct with working sims. I haven't read his book yet (I do plan to though), but have seen his design and I think I could agree with anon 02:04 that he's either got it or something very close to it. It's not unusual for new ideas to catch on. The first primitive internal combustion engine was invented by John Barber in 1791. But, it took until 1876 for Nicolaus Otto to make the first practical four-stroke engine based on Barber's early work. If there are any newbies here who have not yet seen the design that KB's analysis of the many clues Bessler hid in his drawings led to, you can see it in this short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnHy7qZnpI4
Ken B is not the Guardian Newspaper & is the equivalent of the tabloid press. don't forget his sim apparently takes 75 revolutions & 15 minutes to reach 26 rpm just like Bessler's he says.
Deleteha ha even the tabloids get it right sometimes
DeleteAnon 20:23...that sim in the Ken B video is not the Kassal wheel...it's supposed to be Bessler's original little 36 inch diameter Gera prototype wheel that was never publicly shown...when let loose it could reach a speed over 60 revs per minute in only a few minutes but had very low torque...I was curious enough about his book to order a "used--very good" condition softcover copy from amazon which was not too expensive...a new hardcover copy goes for about $45 USD plus shipping...the book weighs 3 pounds or about the weight of a laptop...some might find the digital version easier to handle. 📘😫
Deleteanon 00:34 said "John had no springs in his first Bessler workaround wheel...maybe that's why it failed? "
ReplyDeleteJohn is interpreting and using clues he found only from the public documents and illustrations from GB , AP , & DT . If they don't show springs , and don't lead him to deduce springs , then his B. replication wheel doesn't have springs. However because they were public documents it would seem to me the last place for B. to put in plain sight an important clue like a spring . Even Wagner went with springs , with no public illustration or mention to guide him . And we know there are no springs in these documents ! They are C@NSPICU@US by their absence ! Yet we have MT , a not for public document , in which they get a strong mention and recommendation from B. !
Do the math !
ReplyDeleteduh...okay...2 plus 2 equals...er...5...i think? that right? thats about all the math i can do. does that mean i can make a good pm wheel builder? some one told me come here to find out. i dropped out of fourth grade after i got kicked in my head by our mule one morning and can only count up to 5. mom told me to milk our cow and i got the two animules cornfused. never try to milk a mule cause they donts like that. i still gots the hoof print mark on my fourhead. hurts sometimes when it gettin ready to rain.
DeleteWelcome anon 02:56! You have come to the right blog because this one is loaded with people who, like you, think they can add 2 + 2 to get 5! You're going to make a fine pm wheel builder! Please do share any insights you have with us and upload any drawings you make to postimages.org so we can all be enlightened by them. Welcome! ☺️
DeleteImportant safety tip. NEVER try to milk a mule! They kick like crazy if you do. I found this photo of a farm worker in Iraq who made that mistake. He was probably unconscious for hours to days afterward and the wound never did heal properly. Don't milk mules! 👎🫏
Deletehttps://postimg.cc/pyRLDhDq
I'm allergic to regular cow's milk and can only drink mule milk. Been doing it all my life despite the expense. Yes, there are injuries but only because farm workers accidentally pick the wrong mule to milk. It usually happens when they are still hung over from a previous night's booze binge and go into the wrong stall in the morning with their milk buckets. Never drink the night before you have to milk the mules!
DeleteI agree totally with you anon 19:02. Most injuries are easily prevented while milking a mule. There's a photo showing the proper way to do it:
Deletehttps://postimg.cc/Tp4Cmtdj
First always be sober when doing the milking. And, most importantly, only milk from the side of the animal and never from its rear. That way, if it still kicks, you won't be in the path of those flying hooves. There's no official figure, but I saw one estimate that said close to a million people around the world are injured or killed each year from mule kicks to the upper body especially the face.
"It usually happens when they are still hung over from a previous night's booze binge and go into the wrong stall in the morning with their milk buckets." Yeah, make sure you only go into the stalls that have the nursing MARE mules in them! Lol!
DeleteSince a few here seem to be interested in that Techstuf wheel, I've decided to try simming it. Unfortunately, to make the sim as closely approximate his wheel as possible requires the extensive use of flex beams which I don't usually use. However, I'll do what I can with it and should have a sim ready in a day or so.
ReplyDeleteThe Sim Man
Progress report:
DeleteI have the sim of the Techstuf wheel basically completed, but it is not yet properly adjusted and ready for testing. I might need another day for that.
Meanwhile, making this sim has, once again, shown me what a royal pain in the arse using the wm2d flex beams can be. For example, I noticed that they seem to work well when they are horizontally oriented like a diving board on a swimming pool. But, when you turn them into a vertical orientation, they try to collapse onto themselves forming a kind of zigzag configuration! I've found some ways to compensate for this tendency they have, but it has slowed down the construction of my sim. The bottom line is that wm2d flex beams are not exactly the same as the closely wound helical springs that Techstuf used in his wheel. However, despite that they can somewhat accurately simulate such springs. Well, we'll see what happens when the sim is finally run. If it proves to be a runner, then it's time to seriously consider building Techstuf's wheel again!
The Sim Man
More bad news to report:
DeleteI did finally adjust the sim I made for the Techstuf wheel, but the presence of all of those damn flex beams, each made up of ten separate segments, made the calculations of the individual sim frames slow to a crawl and no amount of tweaking of the accuracy settings helped speed it up. I actually had to get rid of most of the unused and unbending flex beams in the sim, which had very low weight anyway, just to finally produce a few frames of the sim in a reasonable amount of time. But, I saw enough to show me that, while his wheel looks like it has to turn, all it does is rotate a little until its starting and very slightly offset cog goes to an equilibrium position under the axle at which time the wheel will start to keel. IOW, it's just a "bottom heavy" design unless the weights passing 12:00 can quickly be lifted by their springs which, unfortunately, does not happen fast enough either in reality or in sim world. Consequently, I don't recommend anyone waste their time trying to build it. Here's a shot from my wm2d workspace showing how the cog of the wheel's eight weights just sits below the axle where it can produce no cw torque:
https://postimg.cc/pytPxLxy
The Sim Man
If you click on the top of the right panel, on the words Bessler Wheel Pics you can see a couple of pics I’ve received on the blog. I’m happy to add more pics as time goes bye, but only those I approve. 😃
ReplyDeleteClick on home to return to blog.
JC
LOL! "...but only those I approve." = only those showing FIVE levers in them! Talk about selection bias. The REALITY that JC is trying to hide from any newcomers to this blog that might view his collection of past wheel designs is that the VAST majority of them that have appeared here do NOT use just five levers in them. They usually use eight levers and he knows it! Maybe by only showing five lever designs to newcomers he's hoping to brainwash them all into accepting that Bessler used only five in his pm wheels? It looks like JC's so desperate to gain acceptance for his recently disproved pentagonal wheel design, that he's now resorting to using psychological tricks to sell it! 😲
DeleteYeah, unless he shows a mix of different designs, his Bessler Wheel Pics collection will just be a lot of pentagon design propaganda and of little use to a researcher.
DeleteNot So! I’ll post anything but reserve the right not post something, regardless of how many weights and levers it has.
DeleteJC
Keep it up, John. Respect.
DeleteJC wrote: "Not So! I’ll post anything...regardless of how many weights and levers it has."
DeleteLol! I'll believe that when I see him add this one to his collection! 🤣
https://postimg.cc/CRDBNHy2
Why would John publish a "dead duck"? Is it just because of the 8 levers? You're an incredibly nasty and yet kind soul on John's blog. I think the time has truly come.
DeleteMaybe JC's Bessler Workaround and the Ken B wheel really have something in common?...neither has anything to do with what Bessler actually used! 🤔❓❓❓
Delete@anon 18:22
DeleteIf I had to bet which one was closer to what B used I'd go with the Ken B design. That's because when you look at it you see a lot of springs, ropes, odd shaped levers, etc. Those are the same types of parts you see in those old fashion organs they used to have in churches. B was once some sort of organ builder who worked installing or repairing them for a business run by a relative of his. B said that aside from God's divine help he credited his work with organs as making it possible for him to build his working pm wheels. When you look at JC's design you don't see much that would be used in an organ. He has scissor mechs and B did say in his unpublished MT that they were special in some way. Imo, that does not necessarily mean he used them in his wheels. Anyway just my two cents on these competing designs.
Next to clocks, organs were the most complicated pre-industrial mechanisms and Bessler was involved with both clocks and organs. The clock symbolism shows up in his drawings and most likely the organ mechanisms inspired those inside of his pm wheels. There's evidence that primitive versions or organs were being built back about the 3rd century BC. I found this nice blog that explains some of the mechanisms used in organs:
Deletehttps://infomapsplus.blogspot.com/2016/10/
Brad
Here's some info about that 3rd century bc organ. It was invented by a Greek named "Ctesibius" (the letter C is silent) and it looks similar to the organs of Bessler's day. I think Ctesibius and Bessler would have been bff if they had lived in the same century.
Deletehttps://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/02/23/the-greek-engineer-ctesibius-of-alexandria-is-credited-with-inventing-the-pipe-organ-in-the-3rd-century-b-c-and-improving-the-clepsydra-the-most-accurate-clock-for-more-than-1800-years/