Google Video and wheel update

I posted my video about Bessler and his code on youtube a while ago and I see that it is been downloaded 446 times - not as much as I'd hoped but perhaps word will get around and it will get more attention. I'm loading it here to put it on google video too in the hope of spreading the message that there is a solution to the energy crisis and global warming - and it is Bessler's wheel.

My work to replicate Bessler's wheel proceeds well! Yesterday I spent some time refining the movement of one of the mechanisms and discovered, in the process, the meaning of another of Bessler's clues, something I had puzzled over for a long time. It relates to the two angles that one of the levers must adopt in order to drive the wheel onward to the next stage. This new knowledge confirmed to me that I am on the right track and later today I hope to continue with my work. This just illustrates again the need to build these things and not just design them in a simulater or on paper alone - and I would not have discovered the meaning of Bessler's clue if I hadn't been building the mechanism.

Currently I am trying to rearrange the mechanism so that as one part crosses another the two don't get entangled; something that it is prone to at the moment. Rearranging the mechanism without altering its effect is not particularly easy or quick but it is necessary for success. I'll post details of my progress (or not) in a day or two. JC

Optimism vs pessimism

I anticipated being able to publish good news this week but I can't yet. It's not because my efforts to replicate Bessler's wheel have failed (again!) no, other factors have prevented me for returning to my workshop, so success is still eagerly anticipated. I never fail to be amazed at the enormous optimism I continue to have that I shall win this thing - unless someone else gets there first!

And this is the key to success. It has always been a source of irritation to me that here in my home country, England, we seem to suffer an all-pervading atmosphere of negativity while across the water in the USA the opposite is true. There, optimism and patriotism vie with each other for supremacy. Here we see headlines such as 'pig flu stronger than we thought' and 'it hasn't gone away', while in America they say, 'the flu virus is milder than we thought'. And this is representative of the difference in attitudes that is so obvious. How can there be such a dichotomy of attitude coming from two countries reportedly using the same language and sharing a common heritage and so many ideals?

Given the above comments you might assume that the successful solution will come from someone living in the US, but for our size this country (Britain) has produced more innovative inventions than any other and I look forward to continuing that process.

JC

Bessler's Code will be revealed.

Over the last couple of years I have managed to decipher or decode some of Bessler's hidden information and while this has been useful in designing potential working gravity wheels, it hasn't so far, led to success. What it has done is allow me to rule out a number of potential designs because they don't fit the criteria I have extracted from Bessler's code. I am almost there and it has become something of a trial for me to read the various valiant and imaginative attemps to draw conclusions from what Bessler said, and yet say nothing.

My problem is that I am finding it hard to resist the urge to spill the beans - to reveal what I have discovered. Can you not imagine the satisfaction to be gained by explaining what Bessler meant and showing the proof? It would be a glorious and fitting end to my years of research, but I am determined to resist this temptation and go for the longer view. I am continuing to finalise my book which will reveal all anyway but if I can complete the wheel first then I can reveal the secret of Bessler's code then anyway.

As Karl, the Landgrave said, the mechanism is extremely simple - and I can add that the codes too, are extremely simple, at least those that I have managed to decipher are.

Don't forget, if you want to get a quick rundown on Bessler and the codes watch my video at:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

JC

A little further around the corner...

I finished my latest prototype wheel yesterday and it still didn't move continuously. But this is where the advantage of building each model wins over simulation. When I build the first mechanism I always fit it to the wheel and then check it out for timing and range of movement. Once it all looks perfect, I assume it will work, but in this instance it wasn't until all the mechanisms were fitted that I realised that the additional ones had the effect of retarding the timing of the movements of each mechanism.

Actually seeing this in action enabled me to understand why it was still not moving and I thought of a minor alteration to make which was, if I say so myself, pretty dammed ingenious! This variation also explained something that had still got me puzzled over something Bessler revealed in one of his encoded clues. So it's back to the workshop for a couple more days. There is no way a simulation would have thrown up this solution so I shall stick to making my wheels by hand.

JC

Success around the corner?

This week I hope to finish my latest version of Bessler's wheel. This is the most confident I have been to date, at this stage.

Usually I am quite calm, or even sceptical at the prospect of discovering that my design works because, as I'm making it, I don't get the right 'gut' feeling about it, but this time....

Confidence is high but we'll see. I have been close many, many times before.

I'll post something in a few days about what happened - or didn't.

JC

Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?

It seems to me that recently, in many forums, Bessler's wheel is being referred to as a perpetual motion machine (PMM or PM machine) more often than it used to be. I think that this is a mistake because using such names brings with it a lot of subjective cultural and emotive colouration in addition to the explicit meaning of term. The term 'perpetual motion' is often used in a perjoritive way in referring to the subject and those who support Bessler's claims are leaving themselves open to even more ridicule than we already suffer if they continue to use the term when, in my opinion, it is inaccurate, and should be replaced by some other term which describes it more succinctly. Perpetual Motion machines are defined as ones which don't have access to any external source of energy. They are isolated systems relying on their own intrinsic energy and are wholly independent of any other object, action or consequence. Such machines violate the law of conservation of energy.

Bessler's wheel relied on gravity for its energy. Now you can argue that gravity cannot be the sole source of energy for the wheel, but without it, it would not turn. Gravity pervades our world; it permeates all matter in and on the earth and the space around us, so it is in effect both internal and external to any machine which relies on it to work. As such it is not a perpetual motion machine, and not an isolated system,and it does not therefore, break the law of conservation of energy. It is, rather, a gravity wheel, or a gravity engine in the way that a petrol engine is called that because it runs on petrol; or a gravity mill in the same way that a windmill is referred to, thus, because it is driven by the wind.

Old examples of such machines are a windmill which drives a fan which pumps air at the windmill causing it to turn. A modern example would include a battery which drives an electricity generator which charges the battery. Both impossible because they derive no extra energy from outside their own little worlds and are thus isolated systems.

Bessler's wheel did, according to the inventor, use gravity to turn it, so it was a gravity wheel, regardless of whether you think it needed an additional source of energy to complete the cycle. So I must ask those who discuss such matters to please use a term other than PM when describing Bessler's wheel or we shall never get the serious attention of the scientific community we seek.

JC

To simulate or fabricate?

I answered an email recently concerning my belief that actually making models is preferable to using simulation software and more likely to end in success, and I think I should enlarge on it here.

When I said in an earlier blog, that this type of experimentation couldn't be done with any kind of modeling program, what I meant was that, yes, you can test an existing design with simulation software, but in the design process, you can't really rely on it to the exclusion of hands-on design. You may miss some simple alternative design or a small modification to the existing one that you can see in front of you when you have the actual components in your hands. When you can physically move a mechanism by hand and study its range of movement you may find that it becomes necessary to alter something to enable it to comply with your design. You may start the design on paper or in paint on the computer but at some stage it is better if you make the mechanism and see it in action.

Having said that, if I had the expertise and a sufficiently powerful computer to use a simulation programs, I'm sure I might decide to test out a particular design and see if it worked. But I don't so I must build it to see if it works and of course if I found that it did work in simulation then I'd have to build it then anyway. But I would still prefer to build it and study it in action.

One of the things that testing an actual physical mechanism shows is what I call 'tight spots' where at some point in its range of movement, usually at an extremity, the mechanism stiffens and becomes bound. This usually requires some loosening but that can have a negative effect in the part of the range where it isn't tight This looseness can cause lateral sway which may cause overlapping parts of the mechanism to interfere with the full range of movement, but in my experience this can be reduced to an acceptable level with the inclusion of spring washers or other springs. This kind of problem will not show up in simulations and yet it is quite likely to occur.

I suspect that it was this kind of use Bessler was referring to when he implied that he might use springs but not in the way people might think.

These kinds of problems and solutions do not show up in simulation software and for that reason I think it is better to make the parts from the beginning.

JC

Sjack Abeling's wheel

Sjack Abeling's wheel which has been so much discussed on various energy forums is a bit of a mystery to me. I have so many questions which seem to me to undermine his claims to have built a successful gravity wheel. The most trivial-seeming and yet pertinant one for me is why show a video of a non-working wheel (i.e. one with the weights removed) and why now, seemingly some long time after he made it? His patent is apparently fully under way and his
intellectual property rights secured so either show us the working version or, if he has been advised against it by his backers, why show us anything at all?

He claims that his machine works in a certain way, using descriptions so accurately matched to Bessler's own descriptions that one is immediately suspicious of them. I have considerable information about how Bessler's machine worked and I can state with some authority that Abeling's wheel bears little or no similarity to Bessler's.

The concept which he appears to be showing in his much-discussed diagram has no connection whatsoever with Bessler's. But having expressed my doubts I have to consider the possibility that he has managed to create a gravity wheel and one which might include certain similarities to the concept which lies behind Bessler's and I await developments with interest.

My own work to replicate Bessler's wheel continues and I am confident that a working version will be made within a few weeks if not sooner. If I fail I believe it will be due to my own clumsy engineering skills and at that point I will pass the job onto my American friends.

JC

Climate Change

With climate change on the political agenda the search is officially on for ways of reducing carbon emissions at the same time as finding new, clean sources of energy. There are several initiatives desirous of finding that new energy source but the one which I have been advocating for several years is still being ignored by the vast majority, and that is gravitational energy. Specifically, I refer to Bessler's wheel, of course.

My problem lies, not so much in getting people to consider the potential benefits of such a machine, but to consider whether it is even possible. We have been taught so convincingly that gravity wheels are impossible that no one is prepared to give the possibility a second glance, this, despite the convincing evidence that some have already been built.

My question is this - what more can I do, other than build the wheel? That is something I'm working on, but in the mean time ... if people would view my video it might help. I guess watching a video takes less effort than reading text. If you are reading this blog and wish to help please spread the word about the video. You can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

JC