Obfuscation - the act of making something unclear, dark, or difficult to understand, usually intentionally!
Since my last offering, which failed to impress, I have been reconsidering the use of the scissor mechanisms or storks-bills. One comment suggested that my scissor mechanisms were too large, or cumbersome. This comment echoed my own thoughts and my initial reaction was to try to design a linkage which achieved the same action in a simpler way with less friction and an altogether lighter construction and a quicker reaction to changes in attitude.
I kind of succeeded but I’m still testing various ways to find which is best. Before I explain more; I reconsidered Bessler’s writing about scissor mechanisms and realised that he doesn’t actually say, “use them,” he merely points out that they are useful especially as they work sideways or horizontally in either direction. My reading of this is that something with a similar action, but not scissors, might be the answer. It must be simple and able to move freely in either direction, actioned by gravity
I said I kind of succeeded because a new thought was sparked by a curiously contradictory passage I came across, while looking up the exact wording of one of Bessler’s well known passages.. I’ll post the passage in a moment, but at first sight it seems to be recommending opposing views.
In his Apologia Poetica, Bessler wrote, “ So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time. At present, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and climbing back up again”.
Further on he wrote, “ Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.”
So what ever ingenious configuration we propose, it won’t work if it falls into the old trap described by Bessler above. But we all know that and yet the same fault keeps reappearing, and yes I’m also guilty!
So the point I’m making is that in the first quote above he described the weights as working in pairs, so they are linked in some way. He wrote, “…….as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.” But in the second quote, he seems to be saying that such an arrangement won’t work. “…they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.”
An ambiguous text, seemingly offering opposing opinions, and difficult to extract the truth.
Another curious feature of the quotation describes “ ... the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and climbing back up again”. “Falling to the centre and then climbing back up!” Is that an instruction to place the weights above the horizontal centre line and allow the weights to fall towards the centre? And then arrange their lift to ….where?
I copied the original German into google and got this! “ At this time, everyone can still guess what wondrous deeds this one’s heavy journey to the center and that one’s high journey. I may not speak of the devil here, nor open all the windows.” This one and that one, referring to the two weights which work together.
So one weight moves to the centre while its twin move upwards or high - more or less what Bessler and my translate wrote. No sign of the word “gravitating”, because, I assume, it meant the same thing, but gravity wasn’t a term familiar to most people then. Sir Isaac Newton published “Principia” in 1687, Voltaire famously remarked that in the Principia, Newton "walked where others could only crawl" many years later. As a chief champion of the Scientific Revolution in France, he viewed the text as a pinnacle of human reason, though he candidly admitted that its intense mathematical complexity meant "very few" in Europe could truly understand it.
JC
Just because his weights were "working in pairs" does not necessarily mean that they were connected together (although I am most convinced that they were but not directly). For example, in any wheel with an even number of weights on the ends of levers, all of the levers could be isolated from each other and not connected together in any way. A lever approaching 9:00 in a clockwise turning wheel would swing down making its end weight move a little closer to the axle center. While at the same time a diametrically opposite lever approaching 3:00 would also swing down (since it would then be inverted compared to the one at 9:00) and move its end weight farther from the axle center and closer to the wheel's rim and actually as far as possible from the axle center to achieve maximum clockwise torque.
ReplyDeleteI believe that when Bessler built MT13 and saw it was another disappointing nonrunner, he became obsessed with turning it into a runner and he realized to do that he had to figure out a way to BEGIN raising up the weights at the ends of their levers as the pivots of those levers passed the wheel's 9:00 location. He also realized it absolutely had to be done without the levers making any physical contact with that little wheel "B" that was held up by that big crescent counter weight hanging off of and below the wheel's axle. With much prayer, an "invigorating" dream from God, very careful use of his "connectedness principle", and many stretched springs, he finally managed to do it!
Here's a drawing I made for you showing how I believe one should properly interpret his quote about weights "gravitating" to the center and then "climbing" back up again. In the English translation I would have replaced the words "climbing" with "swinging" and "climbing" with "lifted". I used MT13 for my explanation, but I think, like most here, that he settled on using eight levers with end weights:
https://i.postimg.cc/g2DnSD3S/understanding-bessler.jpg
Correction! When I wrote above "In the English translation I would have replaced the words "climbing" with "swinging...", I should have written it as "In the English translation I would have replaced the words "GRAVITATING" with "swinging..."
Delete" my initial reaction was to try to design a linkage which achieved the same action ( as a SB ) in a simpler way with less friction and an altogether lighter construction and a quicker reaction to changes in attitude. I kind of succeeded but I’m still testing various ways to find which is best.
ReplyDeletehe merely points out that they are useful especially as they work sideways or horizontally in either direction. My reading of this is that something with a similar action, but not scissors, might be the answer. It must be simple and able to move freely in either direction, actioned by gravity "
Comment .. perhaps simplified MT's 26 and 27 ( following on from MT's 24 and 25 ) .. controlled horizontal use of V's with weights alternating positions ..
" So the point I’m making is that in the first quote above he described the weights as working in pairs, so they are linked in some way. He wrote, “… as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.”
But in the second quote, he seems to be saying that such an arrangement won’t work. “… they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.” "
Comment .. making sense of it - the internal weights which provide the OOB torque to drive the wheel around and show the superior force are persuaded into position by a reoccurring generative force - they are not moved into position or entirely sponsored by simple machine gravity-leverage and MA techniques alone , which will fail spectacularly - more is needed to beat the gravity-leverage height for width trap .. -f
" So the point I’m making is that in the first quote above he described the weights as working in pairs, so they are linked in some way. He wrote, “… as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.”
DeleteBut in the second quote, he seems to be saying that such an arrangement won’t work. “… they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.” "
Let Ai have at it - no thinking required , impartial , all care and no responsibility ..
I tried that approach. Don't waste your time using AI to try to solve the B pm wheel puzzle. All it will do is give you the majority of the "scientific" opinions of B's wheels that it finds online which is that they were all cleverly hoaxed even though no one can figure out exactly how he hoaxed them. It might also throw in that ANY wheel design that can stay out of balance as it rotates is physically impossible so if one thinks he's found one that MIGHT work before he actually tries to build it, then he is delusional. If any constructed design is presented by anyone that is claimed to actually work, then it MUST be either a mistake by the inventor or, most likely, a hoax by him. End of story...class dismissed! 🧐
DeleteYou misunderstand. Anon 22:19 was suggesting to ask Ai to offer an opinion of what it comprehended Bessler's two seemingly ambiguous statements to mean, in a mechanical sense, when Bessler compares his runners to non runners. Since both statements explicitly mention weights shifting in and out as the norm. Not asking AI to solve the B wheel puzzle.
DeleteBessler is saying:
DeleteThe secret is not merely putting some weights farther from the axle than others. I tried that and failed. The key lies in how the weights continually exchange positions during rotation.
Historically, however, these two quotes are often viewed not as contradictory but as Bessler distinguishing between:
A failed overbalance concept ("weights farther from the center"), and
A more sophisticated weight-exchange mechanism ("they swap places continually").
Anon 3:39 above is an AI generated explanation of the ambiguity and commonality of the 2 statements.
DeleteBessler wrote: "Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time."
DeleteIt sounds to me like he's talking about two weights that are on opposite sides of a wheel's axle. If his wheels contained eight weights, then you can make four opposed pairs like that. As one of the pairs rotates clockwise so its two weights leave the wheel's 9:00 and 3:00 locations, it is followed by the next lagging pair that is 45 deg. behind it. That is then followed by the next lagging pair that is 45 deg. behind it. Then another final lagging pair. Finally, after the wheel has rotated 360 deg. the first pair of opposed weights is located right back at the wheel's 9:00 and 3:00 locations again. The problem is that as each pair's two weights pass the 6:00 and 12:00 locations of the wheel, they must be supplied with energy to BEGIN to shift them. That energy cannot come from outside of the wheel or from any conventional source inside of it.
One can design some tricky mechanics that will use the wheel's rotational energy for the shift, but then the fatal problem inevitably arises. One must use ALL of the wheel's rotational kinetic energy for the shift and once that begins to happen, the wheel will slow to a stop. Somehow, Bessler found a way to reduce the amount of energy needed for the shift of a pair of opposite weights so that, after the wheel's rotational kinetic energy was used for their shift, there was still enough left over to accelerate the wheel or power some sort of attached outside machine. Now all one has to do is figure out how reduce the amount of energy needed for the shift of the two opposed weights. One possible method would be to alter the ascent path of a weight as it rose on the wheel's ascending side. Physics says that's useless...but maybe physics is WRONG?! Any ideas? 🤔💡
Please John, I been hacked.Could you ask Scott to restore my account.
DeleteWho are you? Can’t you text/email/message him yourself?
DeleteI lost my account there once. I just contacted Scott who sorted my problem for me.
JC
Sounds like Trevor , he asked you on the last entry. He could create a new profile and he's only days away.
DeleteAnon 05:09 wrote "One possible method would be to alter the ascent path of a weight as it rose on the wheel's ascending side. Physics says that's useless..."
DeletePhysics is right about that, but there might be another way. How about having the ascending side weights rise at an average vertical speed that is always LESS than the average vertical speed that the ascending side weights fall? Such a wheel's descending side weights would always be losing more GPE per second than was being regained by its ascending side weights. That extra lost GPE could then accelerate the wheel and run outside machines. However, I have no idea how to do that mechanically.
@anon 03:21
DeleteWhat you are describing would be a wheel where the weights are EFFECTIVELY in a state of continuous free fall even though their cog never moves relative to the center of our planet! My knee jerk reaction to such a proposal is that it cannot be done. But, if it cannot be done and all of the other dead duck approaches everyone wastes there time on also cannot work, then what is left? ❓❓❓
What is left? Exactly what the scientists have been saying for 314 years so far...HOAX! 😒
DeleteHere's a definition of the word "hoax" from Wikipedia:
Delete"A hoax is a widely publicized falsehood created to deceive its audience with false and often astonishing information, with the either malicious or humorous intent of causing shock and interest in as many people as possible. Some hoaxers intend to eventually unmask their representations as having been a hoax so as to expose their victims as fools; seeking some form of profit, other hoaxers hope to maintain the hoax indefinitely, so that it is only when skeptical people willing to investigate their claims publish their findings, that the hoaxers are finally revealed as such."
By this definition the Bessler Day anniversary cake photo shown below is a hoax. It never actually physically existed. It was made to humorously bring attention to that date which some Bessler pm wheel chasers may take seriously and annually commemorate in some way. They would have enjoyed seeing it and of course realized it was not real, but perhaps some would secretly wish it was real and they could down a slice of it.
However, saying that Bessler's pm wheels were a hoax is not an accurate statement. It is made by people who are relying on their present day knowledge of mechanics and physics. They ASSUME that knowledge is complete and, since it cannot explain Bessler's pm wheels, that somehow "proves" they could never have actually physically existed and will never exist. They may also point to the lack of success in duplicating Bessler's invention in over three centuries so far as more "proof" that they could never have been physically real. Just because one does not possess the correct physical principle to currently bring something into physical existence does not automatically mean it cannot exist or that it never actually existed.
I think Bessler's working design was actually very simple. All one need do is find some arrangement of weights on levers which, when the wheel is stationary, is out of balance. The critical part, however, is that arrangement MUST remain out of balance even as the wheel starts to rotate and accelerate. To me that means that the levers must be connected together with cords or ropes in some way and also stretched springs are involved somehow in the design. I asked ChatGPT if one built such a wheel, then would it maintain torque as it turned. That AI program said that it would indeed work...but, it doubted if such a design could be found. That doubt was based on the fact that, IF it worked, it would result in perpetual motion which violated the conservation of energy law which everyone KNOWS is impossible. Whenever some design leads to perpetual motion, it can immediately be dismissed as impossible on the grounds that it is "reductio ad absurdum" which is just the Latin way of saying that the design results in something that is obviously absurd. The unstated message, however, is that if anyone does happen to think it's possible, then he is a believer in the absurd and that can be used to immediately label him as a complete fool! 🤪 So, if one wants to avoid being labeled as a fool, he better stop thinking and saying that he thinks perpetual motion is possible.
DeleteThanks John, but I can't contact Scott until it okays my password.
ReplyDeleteDoes he have a private email I reach him on.
ReplyDelete
DeleteTry this:
https://besslerwheel.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=contactadmin
By the way how is you daughter, has she totally recovered from her set back.
ReplyDeleteHappy "Bessler Day" everyone!!! 🥳🥳🥳
ReplyDeleteIt's now been exactly 314 years since Bessler gave his first public demonstration of one of his pm wheels in Gera, Saxony. Yea...hurray!
Let us NEVER forget his incredible achievement and celebrate this anniversary with a nice BIG cake!
https://i.postimg.cc/WzBGXZtj/bessler-day-cake.png
I baked this one myself...but unfortunately, the candle flames got out of control shortly after I got all 314 of them lit up for my photo and as a result I'm now sleeping in my car because my house burned to the ground! Also, my neighbors aren't too happy about it because some of their homes were also damaged. If only they appreciated how important Bessler and his wheels were, then they wouldn't be complaining about their minor inconvenience. 😠😠😠
Lol! nice cake...amazing what we can now create with ai...at least someone here remembered that date. 🎂🥛🍽️😛
DeleteToday, June 6th, is also the 82nd anniversary of the Allies' D-Day landing at Normandy in France which began pushing the Nazis out of Europe and right back into Hitler's clammy underground bunker.
DeleteThanks for posting that picture, it looks lovely!
DeleteWith every anniversary that arrives, I think maybe this time we will see a proof of principle working wheel being revealed, and obviously I hope it will be mine, but who cares who does it, just make it soon. I’m 81, fit as a fiddle, but as I’ve said before, we don’t know what lies around the corner. In the next few months I feel extra confident a new machine will be shown and demonstrated and proven beyond doubt to be the same design as Bessler’s.
JC
Yes, it's a very nice cake to celebrate Bessler's 314th anniversary. Thanks for making it for us, anon 04:27.
DeleteBut as I looked at it I realized that every little candle flame on it represents a full YEAR of toil and frustration for THOUSANDS of pm wheel chasers who tried without any real success to duplicate Bessler's invention over the years since 1712. About ten of the candles on top of that cake include my decade of frustrating pm chasing that only produced on dead duck wheel after another.
Suddenly I wasn't that hungry anymore for a piece of that cake...😞
About 50 of those candles include JC's years of research!
Delete🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️
🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️
😮
John, I am going to have to post here because I think Besslerwheel.com has problems.
DeleteI'm only days away !
Deleteonly days away from your next dead duck? congrats! please do share it with us so we can add it to our ever growing pile of them!
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/zvBKV1Jj/dead-duck-mountain.jpg
Thanks guys!
DeleteWOW!...the AI company stocks are taking off like a rocket! Get in! Get in! You can make a fortune in no time. Just invest every penny you can raise and do it NOW before you miss the boat and it's too late. Don't let some other schmuck grab that fortune away that belongs to YOU! Your rags to riches time has finally come! £££$$$£££$$$£££$$$ !!! 😛
ReplyDeleteEr...not so fast, my friend. Before you drain your bank account, cash in your life insurance policy, and sell your house to raise investment capital, you might want to read this short article about the coming explosion of the "AI Bubble".
https://principia-scientific.com/when-the-ai-house-of-cards-collapses-it-will-be-very-bad/
It's going to be bad...REALLY BAD! I'm an atheist, but even I am starting to pray! 🙏🫨
It is scary, anon 11:41. My fear is that when that AI bubble finally pops, it is going to crash the rest of the world's economy with it. When the dust settles I think we will finally have some sort of global currency that is strictly tied to gold. No more funny money fiat paper currencies put out by governments that are ultimately backed by nothing but hot air political speeches. This is probably a good time to be hoarding some gold. However, don't put it in a bank''s safety deposit box because rioters could break into that bank and ransack those boxes looking for gold. Keep it hidden on your property where only you and your loved ones know where it's located. After the big collapse, only those with gold in their hands will be eating...everyone else will be starving to death! Also, make sure you have some guns and plenty of ammo. After the rioters loot the banks, they will be heading next toward private residences.
DeleteI view the current rise in the AI stocks as your typical "pump and dump" scam in operation. The rich bought in at the bottom and then talked the stocks up by telling everyone how AI will revolutionize the world. The small investor suckers out there believe that nonsense and then start buying the stocks which drives up their prices. But, the rich know it's a bubble that will soon burst like all past bubbles have. Just before that happens, however, they will be quietly selling off their shares and sticking their profits into safe havens like overseas banks and even those precious metals anon 12:37 recommended. Right now they are raking in billions of dollars per week. After the big blow out when all of the suckers have lost their money, the rich, still having theirs, will move in and buy everything up for pennies on the dollar. Then, like the vultures that they are, they will patiently wait for that next big tech bubble to start inflating as sucker cash flows into it. 🎈💥
DeleteI seem to have accidentally stumbled into the Off Topic section again.
ReplyDeleteYeah not much Bessler info here...just some pm philosophy and current world news. 😴 If you want to see a really nice collection of NEW clues, then go back to the May 8th blog's comments. You won't believe what they found in that second DT drawing.
DeleteThanks that's 10 minutes of my life I won't get back.
Delete