tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post8163883544932222585..comments2024-03-27T11:55:27.988+00:00Comments on Bessler's Wheel and the Orffyreus Code: A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALLJohn Collinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13274781515636883957noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-35068368722001729602012-01-09T22:42:35.557+00:002012-01-09T22:42:35.557+00:00I think that Carl described the inner mechanics of...I think that Carl described the inner mechanics of the wheel he saw as "so simple..." precisely because it ONLY used weighted levers, cords, and springs. Carl was well familiar with such things as scientific instruments (he collected them) and the mechanics of such things as clocks and other machinery. The total absence of any gears or pulleys inside of Bessler's wheels would have surprised him.<br /><br />Could a "carpenter's boy" be able to replicate the wheel after taking a quick look at it? Probably not, but he certainly might have been able to assemble one from scratch if he was provided with the proper shapes and dimensions of the parts that went into it. <br /><br />Sadly, Bessler never left those schematics for us. We shall have to derive out own...it WILL happen...eventually.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-61081493347069788972012-01-09T15:34:45.715+00:002012-01-09T15:34:45.715+00:00The elaborate measures taken to exclude a hoax doe...The elaborate measures taken to exclude a hoax doesn't prove it was a gravity driven wheel. <br /><br />Replication by independent sources is ALWAYS necessary for an invention.<br /><br />It didn't have to be a gravity driven wheel for count carl to to give it his endorsement. His only statement about it, that he could even make, was it was so simple a carpenter's boy could make it. That could mean any number of things.<br /><br />One thing it means to me is your approach with cords, springs and multi-armed levers is way off; a boy would never be able to put the maze of all that together without some help. And as I'm showing on the other post, it can't work anyway.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-61258161958575745542012-01-09T05:19:34.211+00:002012-01-09T05:19:34.211+00:00I trust the judgement of Count Carl and so did the...I trust the judgement of Count Carl and so did the various kings of Europe. His reputation for honesty was unsurpassed.<br /><br />IF Bessler had been a fraud, Carl would have been the first to denounce and expose him not only to protect his own sterling reputation, but also to prevent Bessler from perpetrating his hoax on anybody else.<br /><br />I do know about 90% of what they saw of the wheels externally (thanks to Bessler, Gould, and Collins) and, after much research of my own into the matter, about 90% of what Carl would have seen of the internal mechanics.<br /><br />No, I still do not have all of the details I would like to have, but I get bit closer with each passing day. I thank God that I finally got on the "right track"!technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-76646238694208184612012-01-09T04:27:46.856+00:002012-01-09T04:27:46.856+00:00Right. It hasn't been replicated by an indepen...Right. It hasn't been replicated by an independent person. <br /><br />You don't know what the thousands witnessed. You don't know what the count witnessed. All you know is what Bessler *almost* says they witnessed. Which means you know nothing. And that's good enough for me.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-21974511631508202892012-01-09T03:56:28.844+00:002012-01-09T03:56:28.844+00:00Obviously, IF it HAD been replicated by "inde...Obviously, IF it HAD been replicated by "independent" persons, then we would not be trying to replicate it now! LOL!<br /><br />Considering the elaborate measures taken to exclude a hoax, I don't think replication by others is really necessary in this case to establish their genuine nature. The wheels were real, witnessed and tested by thousands, and personally internally inspected by a "qualified" witness of extreme credibility.<br /><br />That's good enough for me!technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-52695672681325764582012-01-09T02:53:11.534+00:002012-01-09T02:53:11.534+00:00It hasn't been replicated by independent perso...It hasn't been replicated by independent persons, so it isn't a fact. Sorry.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-78712074216483483952012-01-09T02:21:56.710+00:002012-01-09T02:21:56.710+00:00And the FACT that it has been done at least SIX ti...And the FACT that it has been done at least SIX times already!!!technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-31854501214923347412012-01-09T01:11:14.930+00:002012-01-09T01:11:14.930+00:00Your conviction is based on wishful thinking.Your conviction is based on wishful thinking.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-50618597350529116412012-01-08T20:40:20.795+00:002012-01-08T20:40:20.795+00:00@ Doug
The outcome is that an OB wheel WILL work ...@ Doug<br /><br />The outcome is that an OB wheel WILL work and continuously output energy / mass IF some way can be found to keep the CoM of its weights on the wheel's descending side. I am 100% convinced that such a way can be found and that Bessler found it. However, I don't think it is quite so simple as today's mobilists might think after reading Carl's comments about it.<br /><br />The solution is out there and waiting for rediscovery. But, to find it one must do a tremendous amount of analysis of the Bessler literature, be able to do world class analytical thinking, and, most importantly, be BUILDING constantly and I don't mean every few months when the mood strikes, but several hours per day! However, like Bssler, I recommend taking off on sundays so you can allow your mind and body to recover.<br /><br />Also, make DAMN sure that you are on the "right track" because if you are not, then "all your industry will be in vain."technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-19497256420988875482012-01-08T12:46:45.247+00:002012-01-08T12:46:45.247+00:00Your claim for the motion isn't any different ...Your claim for the motion isn't any different from the eccentric path claims before it. Your misguided, and overcomplicated, attempts at explaining it are different, but they won't change the outcome of the same claim.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-17587719017133428122012-01-08T06:16:05.794+00:002012-01-08T06:16:05.794+00:00@ Doug
My claim is that the motion of the weights...@ Doug<br /><br />My claim is that the motion of the weights inside Bessler's wheels was NOT "naturally impossible". That motion was the natural result of an array of very carefully counter balanced weighted levers whose CoM always "naturally" stayed to one side of the axle due to very carefully coordinated lever shifting during drum rotation.<br /><br />My simulations only used a single weight, but it was enough to show me that the principle would also work for a wheel containing eight weights.<br /><br />Of course, when one only has a single weight in a design, one is obliged to drive the carrier wheel with a motor so that the weight will follow an eccentric track around the wheel's axle.<br /><br />That, however, does not alter the fact that the ascending and descending side weights in a rotating OB PM gravity will change their energy / mass content at significantly DIFFERENT rates.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-16245541435096873782012-01-08T05:13:47.017+00:002012-01-08T05:13:47.017+00:00If you simulate a naturally impossible wheel, with...If you simulate a naturally impossible wheel, with magically shifting radii, you get differing velocities for the weights.<br />Garbage in, garbage out.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_outDougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-34176379887368015622012-01-08T03:26:07.941+00:002012-01-08T03:26:07.941+00:00Correction:
The line in my last comment that read...Correction:<br /><br />The line in my last comment that reads:<br /><br />"...and about four or five inches below a vertical line passing through the axle."<br /><br />should read:<br /><br />"...and about four or five inches below a HORIZONTAL line passing through the axle."<br /><br />Sorry about that.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-5118569625454539302012-01-07T21:05:26.547+00:002012-01-07T21:05:26.547+00:00@ Doug
I am well aware of the problems associated...@ Doug<br /><br />I am well aware of the problems associated with using simulation software and the extra checks that must be made to ensure that its results are valid and not due to some glitch.<br /><br />I have done many simulations in the past in which I monitored the vertical velocity component of a SINGLE weight as it orbited about the axle of a rotating carrier wheel. I could make the center of orbit of the weight coincide with the center of the wheel axle or I could locate the center of the weight's orbit at various other points on the wheel.<br /><br />I found that the magnitudes of the average rates of vertical ascent and descent of the orbiting weight were only equal when the center of the weight's orbit coincided with a vertical line passing through the wheel's axle. If the center of the weight's orbit was held stationary at ANY other location, then the magntudes of the average vertical ascent and descent velocities of the weight began to differ and the difference became greatest as the weight's center of orbit was moved directly horizontally away from the wheel's axle on either the ascending or descending side of the wheel.<br /><br />This is a REAL effect caused by the eccentricity of the weight's orbit and it DOES have an effect on the rates of energy / mass loss / gain by the weights that orbit the axle of a rotating OB PM gravity wheel. <br /><br />The CoM of the weights on the descending sides of Bessler's two directional wheels were not located directly horizontally away from the center of a wheel's axle, but, rather, about about an inch away from a vertical line passing through the axle and about four or five inches below a vertical line passing through the axle. Thus, the CoM of a sub wheel's weights made an angle of about 12.5° with a vertical line passing through the axle (given by taking the arc tangent of 1/4.5). <br /><br />This is obviously a somewhat shallow angle and a major reason for the low torque of Bessler's wheels. Could it be improved by increasing it toward 90°? Maybe, but that's a whole other bag of worms to contend with AFTER we find Bessler's original design for a "weak wheel".technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-16645974396063852992012-01-07T19:06:41.451+00:002012-01-07T19:06:41.451+00:00Your software is giving you what you tell it to gi...Your software is giving you what you tell it to give you. That's the nature of sims. Computers only do what they are told. <br />If you try to build what your computer tells you to build based on the parameters you gave the computer, then your wheel will perform according to nature's parameters, not the program's. And you're left to wonder why it didn't work. <br />If one doesn't include all of the parameters in the simulation, or has incorrect parameters, one will get misleading results. <br />In the parlance of software, garbage in, garbage out. <br />But I could be wrong,wrong, wrong. <br /> If you simulate a naturally impossible wheel, with magically shifting radii, you get differing velocities for the weights, and the wrong conclusion you came to: Bessler's wheel worked because the velocities were different.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-15746675124489701252012-01-07T04:44:30.741+00:002012-01-07T04:44:30.741+00:00We'll see.We'll see.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-81170772174822268582012-01-07T00:30:04.667+00:002012-01-07T00:30:04.667+00:00Doug wrote:
"There is no difference in their...Doug wrote:<br /><br />"There is no difference in their average vertical velocity components.If you understood what you are trying to articulate, you'd realize that."<br /><br />As JC might say, "You're wrong, wrong, WRONG!"<br /><br />I have used simulation software to verify that when weights follow a path that places their CoM onto the descending side of a rotating wheel there is a significant DIFFERENCE in the magnitudes of their vertical velocity components and the average descent rate is always greater in magnitude than the average ascent rate. I do not just "think" this is a REAL effect, I KNOW it is!<br /><br />Also, the weights that moved about inside of one of Bessler's wheels were not "forced" to do so. They naturally did so because they were coordinated with each other via the Connectedness Principle so as to maintain a particular equilibrium that always placed their CoM on an active wheel's descending side.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-45924476291049949712012-01-06T22:19:09.881+00:002012-01-06T22:19:09.881+00:00There is no difference in their average vertical v...There is no difference in their average vertical velocity components.If you understood what you are trying to articulate, you'd realize that.<br /><br />You need to reread all of your own comments in this post.<br />All of your bobbing and weaving explanations for a working OB wheel has confused your own mind.<br /><br />The weights can't be forced into the path you need without an equal and opposite force acting against the wheel. Levers can't force them, the levers have to push against something, and if the levers are attached to the wheel, then they have to push against the wheel. That's the simplest way I know how to say it.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-9531870468145837982012-01-06T20:05:53.503+00:002012-01-06T20:05:53.503+00:00Doug wrote:
"So now it's back to differe...Doug wrote:<br /><br />"So now it's back to differences in acceleration!"<br /><br />and:<br /><br />"The bottom line is...the weight can't be forced, without counter force, from inside the wheel."<br /><br /><br />If you reread my previous comment carefully, you will see that I an NOT talking about accelerations of the weights, but rather about their average vertical velocity components. <br /><br />In a working OB PM gravity wheel, there is always a difference between the magnitudes of the average rate at which descending side weights lose energy / mass and the average rate at which ascending side weights regain it. This difference is due to the difference in the magnitudes of the average rates of their vertical motions.<br /><br />I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your second quote above.<br /><br />The weighted levers within Bessler's wheels were in a state of equilibrium with respect to each other such that their weights' CoM was always located on an active wheel's descending side. When the drum rotated, that equilibrium would be perserved as the various weighted levers automatically shifted with respect to their rim stops. <br /><br />This equilibrium, however, was a somewhat delicate one. Bessler even complained that he had to keep an eye on those he allowed to handle a two directional wheel so that they would not give it too forceful of a shove which would then cause its internal mechanices to "go out of balance". If such a mishap occurred, Bessler would have to rebalance its internal mechanism again which would require accessing the inside of the drum through one of its inspection holes.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-22765395681497220562012-01-06T14:33:30.014+00:002012-01-06T14:33:30.014+00:00tg said:
This, however, did NOT happen in Bessler...tg said:<br /><br />This, however, did NOT happen in Bessler's wheels because the average magnitude of the vertical dropping velocity of the descending side weights was a bit greater than the average magnitude of the vertical rising velocity of the ascending side weights. <br /><br />So now it's back to differences in acceleration!<br /><br />Whatever. The bottom line is what I posted earlier, the weight can't be forced, without counter force, from inside the wheel.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-52563689430517584522012-01-06T13:05:38.121+00:002012-01-06T13:05:38.121+00:00"powerful to slow" should read "pow..."powerful to slow" should read "powerful though slow". Sorry for the typos.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-46179077207382222892012-01-06T11:19:41.937+00:002012-01-06T11:19:41.937+00:00A (somewhat belated) happy new year to all.
Mayb...A (somewhat belated) happy new year to all. <br /><br />Maybe you guy are interested in a little update. I also would like to say that I'm happy to see mr. Worton here, the inventor of the armature. Elsewhere I read that mr. Worton regrets that nobody seems to think there's much to Besslers signature (as a clue). Well, I for one think that he's right - the armature, after all, is partially based on it. And I definitely think he on to something with that. Reason for me to continue to tinker with it.<br /><br />So here at Chaos Manor I've been working with his armature. If anybody is interested (as I am not into collecting and hogging nuts) I'm willing to put it online, that is, if John would be good enough to post it here.<br /><br />As many of you know I always maintained that oscillation is a key part of Besslers mechanisms. Now that I have mastered some simulation software I've been testing several configurations of the armature, and -after finding some promising stuff- constructed a test model. I have found three interesting things:<br /><br />1). The armature, using springs, can be made to "snap" in and out of respectively closed and open position very quickly, with little effort. <br /><br />2). The armature, with the help of a parametric oscillator at strategic points, requires very little (shifting) weight (the M1 weights) to move a (M2) weight EQUAL or of higher weight.<br /><br />3). It can "make a heavy weight fly up easily".<br /><br />I am now constructing a further modified version of the armature with oscillators attached to it. There are two possibilities: a central oscillator (from the the axle) which is very powerful to slow; and four oscillators for each armature. From what I've seen so far, the latter is the most promising. Thank you mr. John Worton!Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-58655773351801735632012-01-06T06:20:09.823+00:002012-01-06T06:20:09.823+00:00Techno,the best way to prove your theory is,
that ...Techno,the best way to prove your theory is,<br />that you build a wheel, or what ever it is.<br />Nothing will move,with flirting fantasies.<br />No offence.vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478870625877776990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-49696219777052128802012-01-06T04:11:25.074+00:002012-01-06T04:11:25.074+00:00Doug wrote:
"So now the change in energy is ...Doug wrote:<br /><br />"So now the change in energy is back to distance from the axle, rather than elevation difference? Do you just change your argument now when I point out the hole in it?"<br /><br />No! The changes in energy / mass that the weights inside Bessler's wheels experienced were dependent upon the changes in elevation of the weights and NOT their distance from the axle.<br /><br />I used the example of a wheel with weights always located the same distance from the axle only because when such a wheel rotates, the descending side weights lose energy / mass at the EXACT same rate that the ascending side weights regain it. As a consequence, no extra energy / mass is left over to accelerate the wheel or drive external machinery.<br /><br />This, however, did NOT happen in Bessler's wheels because the average magnitude of the vertical dropping velocity of the descending side weights was a bit greater than the average magnitude of the vertical rising velocity of the ascending side weights. Because of this asymmetry in the rates of change of energy / mass of their ascending and descending side weights caused by the eccentricity of their motion with respect to the axle, the weights were able to constantly output energy / mass to accelerate the entire wheel or power outside machinery. With each complete rotation around the axle, each weight would be a fraction of a picogram LESS massive.<br /><br />So, my argument has not really changed and you have yet to poke any holes in it!technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-87237184536942285032012-01-06T04:08:37.250+00:002012-01-06T04:08:37.250+00:00Doug, hmmm how can we make this interesting?Doug, hmmm how can we make this interesting?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com