Update - and five mechanisms required for proof of principle

Because I remain convinced that parametric oscillation (or kiiking) is the key to understanding Bessler's wheel I hope those who read this will understand why I continue to discuss it here.

Following a suggestion by a member of BW forum, I reconstructed my wheel with one (modified) mechanism instead of five, in an attempt to provide proof of the principle. I then realised that I had set it up wrongly as I had included an equal weight on the opposite side of the wheel to counterbalance it. This of course reduced the torque available to a very small amount. A kiiking rider has only himself to rotate about the swing pivot but if he had a non-participating second rider attached on the other end of a pair of extended swing rods he would be counterbalanced either in his outer position or in his inner one, depending on how the counterbalance was arranged. But even if the counterbalancing rider was working at pumping the swing in concert with the main rider, the torque available would be tiny in comparison to that generated by one rider.

I removed the counterbalance, restoring the full torque available and the mechanism, when started at a position close to twelve o'clock, rotated to the eleven o'clock position where it stopped and reversed. Obviously the mechanism was generating too small a pulse. This also highlighted the fact that kiiking swingers have to pump their swing many times to get  up to twelve o'clock, (20 or 30 pumps) and this is clearly the only point from which they can achieve a full rotation.

The sport of "kiiking", or "kiikuda" to use the correct verb, requires the winner to be the one who can achieve a number of consecutive rotations using longer swing rods than anyone else. This implies that the rotation is easier to achieve with shorter rods - or that the distance the rider moves his body in or out is relatively more with shorter rods. Obviously the latter applies as the distance moved inwards or outwards is going to be roughly the same for every contestant (unless he or she has extremely long legs!) but is more effective on shorter rods.

As my mechanism moves the weight inwards a set amount because the weights are the same regardless of how long the rods are, I may shorten the rods a small amount to increase the change in the angle of momentum and generate a stronger pulse, but space is limited. So if I place a second mechanism exactly opposite the first one, I anticipate that with the reduced torque then available from the action of the mechanism, the wheel will still not achieve one rotation - why? Because the difference in length of the pendulum achieved by the falling shifter weight, will only produce a small impulse. I stated many times and on my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/ that I believe that the wheel required five mechanisms as I maintain Bessler implied by his ubiquitous use of the number five,and that is still my firm opinion. Because I believe this is true I shall omit further testing with anything less than five. I'll update this information when I have more to say.

I have updated an old web site at http://www.247website.co.uk/ I occasionally post things on which have little to do with Bessler, and have added a potted history of Kiiking and good evidence that it goes back a long time before Ado Kosk publicised it.

JC

Why do we search for Bessler's hidden clues and yet ignore his clear advice?

There is a need among us Bessler-obsessives to find out how he made a successful gravitywheel. We look for the solution by studying what he wrote and what he drew and what others said about him and his wheel; we modify the translations to try to get the last important detail that we believe might have been missed and we look for double-meanings in his words and so on and so forth. I am as bad if not worse than most because I seek to find what I deem to be hidden clues deliberately left by the inventor as a guide to those who followed in his footsteps. "Seek and ye shall find", says the bible and I have certainly found! Misapplying the quote, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I am fully aware that my finds, so clear to me, are obscure to others. I understand the reasons for this and am content to offer my suggestions in the hope that it will help and inspire someone else with more expertise than I to substantiate my finds.

This brings me to another curious facet of our obsession. On the one hand there are these clues which, like the smile on the Cheshire cat, seem to fade into invisiblity, upon deeper scrutiny, revealing nothing more than the number five - and then there are the clearly articulated clues written by Bessler in the plainest language which are either ignored or separated into those we individually accept and those we reject. Why is it that when we are searching for clues as to how he succeeded, by sifting everything he wrote or drew, do some of us, sometimes, ignore the plainly written advice he gives us?

Bessler advised against using simple over-balancing designs to make a gravity wheel spin and said he learned the hard way that trying to arrange for more weights to be on one side of the wheel than the other wouldn't work. Yet I see many attempts to solve the problem with simple over-balancing wheels. Why do we ignore the words of the man who solved the problem? Overbalancing does not form the chief principle behind Bessler's wheel, although I believe it still has a role to play, as I showed in my explanation at http://www.gravitywheel.com/

He also said his weights gained force from their own swinging. A weight which swings and as it does so, gains force i.e. strength/speed, can be seen demonstrated by anyone on a swing. That is how the kiiking swinger works his way up to the twelve o'clock position.

He said too, that he only needed gravity and no other energy source to make his wheel go round. I have already explained on my gravitywheel web site why gravity alone, while still being a conservative force, can be successfully used by means of the twin weight system, suggested by Bessler, without conflicting with the laws of physics. Despite his assurances, most people still believe that there must have been some other force available and necessary to allow his wheel to complete continuous rotations and so they seek a different solution.

If we are serious about finding the answer to Bessler's wheel, we should start by taking his clearly written advice to heart. If this is insufficient for finding the solution then we should look for more obscure clues - as I have done.

I know I allowed my enthusiasm to run away with me and claim that I knew how the wheel worked, but at the time I believed that to be true, as we all have from time to time. I was unwilling to share this information without testing it first, but having publicised my personal conviction that I knew how it was done, I left myself with no alternative but to reveal my belief and thus put myself in front of the firing squad. But this does not mean that the basic principle is wrong. No other one provides such a close match to Bessler's description nor provides a potential solution, and I have explained this in detail at http://www.orffyreus.org/ and http://www.gravitywheel.com/

My mechanism may fall short of the required design to fulfill the principle, but in my opinion the principle itself holds up well and will I am sure lead to a working gravitywheel .

JC

Why am I such an optimist in the face of successive failures? I don't know - I just am!

I'm back and ready to tackle this task again, refreshed, reinvigorated with a bunch of new ideas which look good - on paper! Spain was hot and sunny and the girls gorgeous - I mean my wife, daughter and grand daughter of course! The wine flowed and so did my ideas. I'm told it rained here in the UK for the entire two weeks - so no change there then.

I stand by the principle described on my web site at www.orffyreus.org and www.gravitywheel.com I'm going to try to prove it is right, but obviously there are some changes to the actual mechamisms to be made. While on holiday I made one new discovery in Bessler's clues, the design of which I have now included in the mechanism. I hope to build it as soon as I can and will report success or failure here.

Reading through the posts on besslerwheel.com I cannot help but feel that the only thing going around in circles are the ideas and opinions expressed there. Also the clues which I have interpreted and placed on my www.theorffyreuscode.com web site are totally ignored. I cannot claim that they are all correct but it seems to me that people are misinterpreting how Bessler designed his clues and the way to solve them. I have shown the way to interpret them and yet the posts indicate that they are looking at each one as a whole clue rather than a patchwork of different clues.

I realise that nobody has to believe my clues have any validity because I too, have not produced a working wheel, however even though that is true so far, I am confident that in the near future it will be shown that I was largely correct in my interpretations.

So I'm glad to be back and look forward to reading your posts guys. I'm still undecided about the best way to deal with the mean spirited commentaters and bullies who appear from time to time here but I would prefer not to make it more difficult for people to post their comments, so I will probably just delete those I don't like.

My definition of those I probably won't like is not fully formed but I think the use of swear words, bullying and name-calling are unproductive and can cause offence, so I will probabl delete them.

JC

Spain again!

I'm leaving for Spain very early tomorrow, (flight's at 6.30am) so I'll be closing the comments while I'm away. Looking forward to hearing your views again on my return. I hope I shall have some interesting news to report then - good or no so good.

Don't go and build a working Bessler's wheel while I'm away will you guys? Just kidding, good luck, see you soon.

I'll close it as late today as I can.

JC

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