A Repudiation of Certain Statements made in Comments on this Blog.

It has been suggested here on this blog that "Bessler's wheel requires no energy to prime the weights even though they produce an imbalance providing torque to turn the wheel."

I disagree that the weights are "primed" as you put it, without requiring energy, they have to be lifted in the first place.  This requires energy. On the other hand I agree that the wheels turn according to "known physics".  So your suggestion that your wheel "uses the law of perpetual motion, which requires that no energy is needed to prime the weights ...", does not concur with what you refer to as "known physics"' which does require the consumption of energy.

So, assuming that Bessler did not lie, it is obviously possible to design a way to lift the weights so that they can fall repeatedly and this action must comply with "known physics" , so there is no need to invent a "law of perpetual motion". But the energy to lift the weights after each fall has to be included in the design, it's no use inventing new ways of enabling the weights to overbalance,  hoping that they will rise through the rotation of the wheel.

There is at least one way and possibly more than one, and it can be demonstrated that by incorporating some additional features that each weight can be lifted at the optimum moment in rotation.  This can be achieved with a simple design feature which I'm unwilling to discuss here because I'm writing it up, which easily causes each weight to shoot upwards, just as Bessler described.  I don't expect anyone to believe me without any supporting testimony just as I wouldn't believe anyone else who made such claims.

I will also take issue with the statement that, "you will not find anything in the MT drawings or the codes", not true and my document includes numerous illustrations along with full explanations of some of the clues from MT and some codes which will prove the error in the above quotation.

Finally let me deal with the statement that, "all of Bessler's wheels could theoretically start on their own, it just depends on what state they were left in when they were stopped."  This is demonstrably wrong.  The first two wheels were held stationary when not being demonstrated otherwise they started spontaneously.  Why assume Bessler lied?  It is safe to assume that the many witnesses who were allowed to screw the bolt in and out to slow the wheel down would soon have found the spot in rotation which would allow the wheel stop and remain stationary.  It is also entirely logical that to rotate continuously the wheel must have been in a state of continuous imbalance.  Therefore how could it not start spontaneously?

The latter two wheels could spin in either direction therefore they must have been in a state of continuous balance, as opposed to imbalance, and therefore how could they possibly start spontaneously?  The action of giving them a gentle push in the desired direction led to acceleration in that chosen direction, once one weight was heard to fall.  Once the wheel was stopped it remained stationary, and because a weight had to fall before it began to accelerate, it would not be possible to stop it in a position from whence it could spontaneously begin to rotate.

I have tried to argue logically without using any information I am privy to, which is unknown to readers of this blog, to try to balance some of the statements issuing from the hand of a certain commentator.  Much of this person's output is erroneous, self-opinionated and an example ofself-aggrandisement and should be taken with a large dose of scepticism, as should his claims to imminent success.

JC

Update for April 2016

While I await completion of the purchase of my house, I am unable to do any wheel building, so I'm working on the configuration of the mechanisms to try to improve and simplify the actions.  This can be a good task to undertake as it can lead to new ideas and also the discovery of potential problem areas.   Predictably I have found a weak spot in my design which is easily overcome and my enforced idleness has given me the opportunity to find this before I had continued with my build.  I tend to attack these new designs with too much enthusiasm and haste and then find I've got to go back a couple of steps to correct things.

My publishing intentions are still firm and at least I have the time now to work on the document and make any necessary alterations.

So my plan is to continue to finish and publish all the information I have acquired which I believe Bessler left for us in the hope that we would understand it and replicate his work.  At the same time l'm continuing to look at my design and once I'm back in my workshop, I will try to finish my proof of principle wheel or at least the mechanism, and publish a video of it with accompanying commentary.

For those who may think I'm prevaricating about my hypothesis document I must tell you that it is proving a complex composition.  It currently runs to more than 40 pages with more than 38 illustrations and there are more in the pipeline. If this seems a lot, be assured that it is necessary.  If I am to prove that Johann Bessler left enough instructions to permit the construction of his wheel, exactly in the form that he built his own, then I have to show the clues as he left them and how they reveal the solutions.  Each clue forms part of the whole, but it had to be obscure otherwise it would be too obvious and his secret revealed too soon.

Which ever comes first does not matter to me, I will publish both. In the mean time I will continue to write my blog when I feel that I have something worth saying.  I hope that you will stay with me at least to give me your reactions when publication happens.

JC

http://www.witt-energy.com/ harvesting Motion Energy

I have Andre to thank for informing me about this amazing invention -  the WITT motion energy harvester.  It has been invented by Martin Wickett, a British civil engineer, who has found a way to construct a device which uses motion in any direction to drive a rotating wheel.

Unlike a self-winding watch which uses linear motion to win a watch,, this device harvests all motion whether up, down, round sideways etc. Andre sent me this (now corrected) link to a youtube video:-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RACH6bFhxKY&feature=youtu.be

Here is another link to the official website.  So many potential uses for this machine!

 http://www.witt-energy.com/

I put it on this blog because I think it is such a logical and useful discovery.

JC

You need a working wheel or enough of the mechanism to show how it works.

When Johann Bessler exhibited his wheel for the first time in Gera, Germany, 6th June 1712, he had worked out in his own mind that all he had to do was provide some evidence that his wheel was genuine and the rest would follow - money, fame etc.

The next few years proved his optimism was seriously undeserved.  No one was sufficiently persuaded of his claims to make an outright payment in full without seeing for himself that the wheel was genuine. 

Gottfired Leibniz tried to guide him by suggesting several tests which would add weight to his claims by being difficult if not impossible to fake.  They included translocation to a different set of wheel supports; lifting as high as possible a heavy load; driving an archimedes screw; a long endurance test under guard, lock and key and seal - and most importantly, if he could bring himself to allow it, the public confirmation by a well-respected person, of the genuiness of his wheel, by revealing the internal workings for his close inspection.

All these requirement were eventually carried out, but still no buyer could be found who was not prepared to pay up without first assuring himself that the device was real by looking inside it.

This sounds depressing and we may feel sorry for Bessler, but there is good reason to suspect that exactly the same response or lack of response would follow similar claims today.  You might think think that a patent would be proof enough, but consider how many hundreds of perpetual motion machine designs have been registered with various patent offices over the last few hundred years and you can see that a patent proves nothing even if it might offer some limited protection against competition.

The only answer, it seems to me, is to reveal the design within a video of a working model; a full explanation will need to accompany the video - or find that reputable person, like Karl the Landgrave, who will verify your wheel. But you still need that working model, I know, I'm in that situation now.

There is one more possibility to my mind and it is this.  There must be a configuration within your wheel which will demonstrate how the mechanism works, without having to complete a whole wheel.  The weights which fall have to be returned to where they started from at least once in each turn of the wheel, and your mechanism must be able to demonstrate how that can be achieved, and that is the route I intend taking once I get my workshop back.

JC