Will one mechanism be enough for proof of principle?

Several people have suggested that it doesn't matter how many mechanisms there are in Bessler's wheel, as only one will be needed to prove the principle. I had resisted this idea because I was convinced that Bessler was adamant that there were five (mostly this is just my opinion) and I thought that anything less would not do. So anyway, in the last few days I have been building and fitting just the one new mechanism to the wheel. It is a new design and very simple. The result is excellent. This time the mechanism reacts exactly as I want it to, according to the parametric oscillation principle I described on my gravitymill web site. The shifter mechanism throws up the primary weight at six o'clock with some force and throws it up again with less force after the twelve o'clock point.

Now I need to lock the mechanism in a neutral position before attaching some balancing weights to the other side of the wheel so that the assembly is balanced what ever position the wheel is in. The plan is then to release the mechanism and see what happens. According to Bessler one 'cross bar' hardly moved the wheel, but what does that mean? Does he mean that he had to nudge the wheel a little to complete a full turn, or does he mean that it turned but extremely slowly? I can't somehow believe that the wheel would turn slowly and evenly, but I suspect that it managed most of one turn and then needed a small nudge. The thing is, how convincing would that be? It must have been enough to convince Bessler that he was on to something, so I guess I'll just have to try it and see. I suspect that in the end I'll have to put more mechanisms on. I might of course be completely wrong - again - and perhaps what most people are telling me is true, that parametric oscillation is not the answer. Only they'll have a job to convince me!

I'm going to be away for a couple of weeks starting next week- Spain again! - so I'll close comments early next week and go into silent mode for fortnight. I'm hoping to finish this latest mechanism before I go, but I think my wife has other plans for the next couple of days so I probably won't be placing any updates on it before I go!

JC

Update and Puthoff's response

Now that the excitement which seemed to be building, despite my rather lame attempts to diffuse it, has been somewhat dampened by the disclosure of my theory, I feel I can get back to work on trying to reconstruct Bessler's wheel.

I understand that some people believe that I have been trying to build up some huge PR stunt to promote something and I was completely taken aback to learn this as nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said elsewhere I have no agenda other than trying to build a working version of Bessler's wheel and to find a publisher for my rewritten biography of Bessler. I don't imagine for a moment that any publisher will take on my book unless someone somewhere succeeds in replicating Bessler's wheel and therefore I have no need for PR stunts either large of miniscule.

I have had a response from professor Hal Puthoff which suggests that he is unconvinced by my theory. I cannot put the whole argument up here but his argument against my theory is entirely based on the 'conservative forces' page in which I try to show why gravitywheels do not conflict with the laws of physics. Unfortunately I chose to simplify my case by using a very simple explanation unconnected with parametric oscillation (PO) and he has taken that and argued that the wheels would remain in balance. I have written back and asked him to take into account the PO action, meanwhile I am re-writing that page to try to demonstrate the same argument using 'kiiking' as the basis for it.

JC

A comment on comments

When I began this blog I was aware that were recognised issues regarding negative comments and the consensus of opinion was that in the end most people simply delete those they don't wish to have on their blog. You only have to search google to see that it is common to all blogs.

When I describe them as 'negative' I don't mean comments which disagree, I welcome those as part of the normal to and fro discussions which can enliven debate and maybe throw some light onto a subject, no, I mean those which are downright nasty and abusive. I was determined at the start of this blog not to delete any comments no matter how much they might irritate and dismay me, but I am beginning to see that it is not just myself that is the target but other readers too.

I still don't want to delete any comments I don't like and it would be infinitely preferable if people just commented in the way they would if they were speaking face to face in the normal world outside this virtual one. The rules of etiquette which normally enable peopleto get on with friends and neighbours without causing offence or harm don't seem to apply here and yet I see no reason why they shouldn't.

Here's a link to an old comment on negative comments which sums up the problem:-http://www.dustindiaz.com/negative-comments/

So criticise, comment, praise, support or disagree, but keep it constructive please.

JC

The Bessler-Collins Gravitywheel is on line

OK! Deep breath; here goes!

I've published my theory about Bessler's wheel at www.gravitywheel.com. I had hoped to call it a bit more than a theory or a hypothesis by demonstrating a working 'proof of principle' wheel, however I might succeed in a while - see, no time commitment there!

Despite my apparent confidence I am extremely apprehensive about the reaction to my explanation of how Bessler's wheel worked. When the document itself was being written and rewritten it was easy to be so full of enthusiasm but publishing it for all to see, feels a bit like sticking your head up above the ramparts so people can shoot at you!

I'm not sure whether to accept comments here or respond on besslerwheel forum. I'll wait and see what happens - maybe nothing?



JC