Gravity loophole and eggs on faces!

Having witnessed a plethora of advice on the Besslerwheel forum from the advocates of the opinion that the likelihood of gravity turning out to be the main driving force for Bessler's wheel is about as likely as the survival of a fart in a cyclone, I can only say that I look forward with unbounded enthusiasm to the day when we can look at all the naysayers, who regard us as naive at best, and say..."We told you so, but you wouldn't listen!"

Somebody described us as "naive" and yet the word  naive describes people who tend to believe in whatever they are told, without questioning whether it is right or wrong. Perhaps the word should be applied to those sceptics instead. How else can you describe their complacency in stating in the strongest possible terms that Bessler's wheel will never be driven by gravity alone?  They state with unparalleled self-satisfaction that such machines are impossible and Bessler was either a fraud or used some additional force to achieve the same result.

Why are the words that Bessler used taken as lies or misleading statement at best?  He states in no uncertain terms that the weights are in themselves, the source of the energy, saying " these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.  To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and co- ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing.  This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation. "

The above statement is unequivocal and should be taken seriously instead of examined for double or hidden meaning .... or downright lies.

So the only conclusion is that there must be loophole within the accepted laws governing gravity which would allow devices such as a gravity-wheel to work as Bessler described - and there is.  It isn't even a loophole - just an overlooked facet of the subject.  I know it and I can prove it, so if I'm right then all you know-it-all sceptics are about to have egg on your faces.

Loophole;  an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. wikipedia

JC

Out of ideas? Cross bars and parametric oscillation?

It may have been noticed that the number and frequency of blogs has sharply diminished of late, and the reasons are several.  Subjects relating to Bessler are getting harder to discuss as the finishing line looms closer.  Writing about the subject without giving away anything about my research limits what comments I can make and it is clear that the Besslerwheel forum is suffering from the same affliction; people are running out of ideas to discuss.  I am also keenly aware that every time I make a statement such as I believe that  I am on the final stretch towards the finish, I sound like every other would-be winner of this race to exhibit the first gravity wheel in 300 years.

I often read comments on the besslerwheel forum which seek to affirm certain suppositions as facts and which I at least know are incorrect.  My problem is that when I know for certain that they are wrong I am unable to make any comment to correct this impression if it relates to anything which might give away the principle which I have discovered lies at the heart of the Bessler wheel.

How do I know with such certainty that they are wrong?  I can best answer this with an example.  It has often been stated with considerable self-assurance that we will never know if the wheel, when the solution is eventually found, will be the same configuration as Bessler's.  I can state with equal certainty that we will know, because I have already found enough evidence to convince everyone that the design lies there for all to see if only they can put the correct clues together.  Remember Bessler's word found written across the first page of Bessler's Maschinen Tractate; 

N.B. 1st May, 1733.  Due to the arrest, I burned or hid all the woodcuts that prove the possibility.  However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them'. "

These words are the important ones, as I have said before - taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them.

I have found the correct illustrations and have put certain parts of them together to obtain a movement or action that demonstrates the principle.  I found the principle which, by the way, involves parametric oscillation as suggested by Scott many years ago on the forum - and also, independently, by professor Hal Puthoff in private correspondence with me several years ago - from other clues in Bessler's drawings, but I have to say that I discovered the Bessler-Collins principle myself first and then found it confirmed in a drawing by Bessler.

You may say, "where is the wheel then?" which is a fair question and I can only tell you that it is being worked on.  Knowing the principle alone is not sufficient and the delay in finishing it lies in deciding how to arrange just one cross bar or cross or crossing to make the principle work.

Speaking of cross bars,  Creuz, the word used by Bessler, and translated as cross bar, has a multitude of meanings and could refer to clubs, as in playing cards, or sharps as in music, or traverse, or of course the letter X - or it might just refer to the shape of a cross in the design of his mechanisms, but in the end it seems to indicate how many mechanisms he employed.  One was scarcely sufficient to turn the wheel but more worked better.

I shall continue to write blogs but they need more care in presenting my thoughts, given that the solution would be so easy to give away, and - selfishly, I admit - I would like to be the one who succeeds with my own version of Bessler's wheel.  As I've promised before, the work I've done will be published if I can't succeed soon so until then I shall keep reconfiguring the mechanism until it does what I want - or give up!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Build Update and drilled holes which wander awry!

I'm totally immersed in this project and finding it difficult to take time to write this blog, so apologies if you miss my pearls of wisdom, but I have to finally find a way to finish it - the wheel that is, not the blog!  I shall reappear periodically with another trite piece of literary garbage in a vain attempt to stoke some interest afresh, in the life and legend of Bessler's wheel and my/our attempts to solve the ingenious puzzle he bequeathed to later generations - how to cause a wheel to spin continuously requiring nothing but the force of gravity inplace of fuel.

My wood disc, which I use as a kind of platform for attaching the various bits of mechanism that I devise, has been replaced recently because the old one was in danger of becoming a large wooden circle with nothing inside the rim; this being due to my need to drill numerous holes in incalculabler numbers all over the face of the disc, each of which was designed to hold one of the supporting pivots for the forest of levers bearing weights, which formed the mechanisms, but which was found to be in the wrong place according to the resulting state of frozen immobility.

So I begin work anew using my pristine MDF disc, and have carefully measured the dimensions of the levers and drawn their correct positions on the face of the disc and have begun again to drill those accursed holes which are sometimes driven by some iniquitous urge to move slightly off position, thus preventing the success I so desperately seek.

Just kidding guys!  I have drawn in the angles the levers are intended to follow, the weights are ready and attached to the levers.  I'm making this latest version with the intention of trying it with just one mechanism - or one cross-bar as Bessler put it.  I'm not convinced that it will work with only one and Bessler said in Apologia, "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several leverss, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster.."  but it should work sufficiently to prove the principle.

It's so frustrating to know the principle behind the wheel and it's so easy to understand that anyone who learns about it will know with the same certainty as I do that it is the key to success.  I was thinking of calling it the "Bessler-Collins principle of ..." - sorry guys but that would give it away! 

Somebody pointed out that the heading of the blog 13th September, Never, Ever, Give Up.originated from a fragment of a Churchill speech which went like this:-

“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force, never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Who might the enemy be?  Why, the world of sceptics out there who deride our every word.

Anyway back to work and I hope I can give you some good news soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Levers, Weights and Perpetual Motion Wheels

When I began my research into Bessler's wheel, 50 odd years ago (!), I used paper, pencil, ruler compasses and a protractor, not much has changed; I still prefer doing the initial design on paper before recording it on my computer.

My first thoughts were to try to design a way of making the weights keep further from the centre of rotation, or try to get more of them on one side than the other -  and that is pretty well the same thing today - that the vast majority of people try to achieve.

But, as I progressed by trial and error - mainly error - one of the mistakes I made many years ago involved the different effects experienced by a lever with a weight on one end, a pendulum if you like, when attached to a wheel.  I'm sure that most people are aware of this simple phenomenon, but as I still get designs emailed to me which ignore this effect, I thought it useful to describe it here.

A pendulum whether swinging or stationary, applies its weight to the pivot.  In other words, gravity pulls down on the weight and the pull is experienced at the pivot. For the sake of this argument I ignore other pulls experienced by the pendulum when swinging.  One of the typical features of perpetual motion designs includes the use of these weighted levers. 

Consider this; a lever with a weight on one end is attached to a pivot mounted at some place on the wheel, say half way between the centre and the rim.  When the wheel is stationary the pendulum hangs straight down, and its weight is experienced at the pivot.  If the wheel is slowly rotated, the lever remains hanging from the pivot while it counter-rotates relative to the wheel, and the weight of the pendulum is still born by the pivot and felt at that point.

If a stop is placed in the path of the counter-rotating pendulum, and this will inevitably be part of the design, then the pendulum is prevented from further motion relative to the wheel; the pull of weight is no longer experienced at the pivot but is then moved to the position on the wheel occupied by the weight. 

 This means that the pull from the weight has moved across the face of the wheel at the the instant that the pendulum comes up against the stop.

Should the wheel be rotated by hand until the pendulum is able to fall again, its weight during the fall, is negligible because it is in free fall and the pivot does not bear the weight and neither does the wheel, so the wheel has lost that portion of its total weight - until, that is, the weight hangs vertically again from its pivot.

So the position in which the weight is supported, or experienced, and where it affects the wheel, moves between the pivot itself and the weight where ever it happens to be relative to the wheel and, for a brief moment, no weight at all, as it falls.

There are several problems which arise when the design calls for the pendulum to do something which doesn't take into account these features and I'd like to have run through some, but time, space and falling reader attention combine to persuade me otherwise.

Of course this all changes if the falling pendulum is designed to do work as it falls - and that's a whole new can of worms!

I should perhaps have included drawings to illustrate this, but the clock is always against me.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.