Wheel progress update

Doug made the point that 'A lot of scientific discoveries have been made by accident and even more thru trial and error. Did Bessler design a genuine perpetually turning wheel by trial and error, by accident, or by a dream in the night? Or did he realize the sphexishness of his efforts? Did he then design wheels that would convince everyone they were genuine, even though they weren't genuine?'

It's true that trial and error have played a part in scientific discoveries, but I think Bessler told the truth about his dream giving him the information he needed. I have had those kind of dreams as have others working in this field. But discovering the concept which may lead to the solution is usually followed by a bout of trial and error and might even involve sphexishness!

My own current construction has proven stubbornly stationary. Yesterday I finished the latest prototype and it failed miserably. However I know why and also what to do about it, so I won't be revealing anything just yet. The problem can best be explained by considering a horizontally opening window.

Imagine that it is wide open at 90 degrees from the closed position. The hardest effort to close it is at the start and then it become progressively easier to close . The same thing is happening to my mechanisms. They are slow to begin the move and then they slam into position, but too late. The solution appears to be to reduce their range of movement. It would be like only opening the window half way, to 45 degrees. Easier to close then.

This causes another problem which I also know how to solve - the range of movement of the main weight is reduced to the point of ineffectiveness. I must therefore increase the range of what I call the initiator, so that is what I shall be working on. Bessler described the weight as flying upwards and that is vital in my own design as it has to start and complete its range of movement within a fifth of a turn of the wheel itself, as there are five mechanisms.

I don't feel disheartened by this latest failure, as the end appears to be in sight.

JC

Sphexishness in Perpetual Motionists?

I'm indebted to Murilo, a regular on the besslerwheel forum, for the following link to an article about'sphexishness'.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldman-sphex-20110515,0,7387307.story

It got me thinking. If, in response to a familar trigger situation, we follow an internal rule or command, maybe ignoring alternative paths to follow, is this an example of 'sphexishness', if it is then I would argue that we are all, to a small degree, infected with this same set of internal rules.

From the above link, briefly, "scientists have coined a word for a certain type of behaviour named "sphexishness", after the female digger wasp, the 'sphex'. She will sting and paralyze a cricket, stash it in a hole in a tree and lay her eggs on it. When the eggs hatch, the baby wasps have fresh cricket to eat. But sphex also has an internal rule. When she brings a cricket to the opening of the hole, she always goes inside for a look around before she drags it in. If the cricket is moved a few inches away while the sphex is in the hole, she will repeat the process, bringing the cricket back to the opening and going inside for a look. As often as the cricket is moved, the wasp will repeat the behavior. Her internal rule calls for her to look in the hole before she drags the cricket inside, and that is what she will do, ad infinitum, every time the cricket is moved."

It's fun to observe sphexishness in animals. I used to have a labrador dog and it amused me that she always turned around a couple of times before settling in her basket. I was told that this was an instinctive action inherited from her forebears, related to trampling down grass to make a bed. This was an internal rule unconnected with her present circumstances but impossible for her to ignore. Even when she grew old and arthritic and barely able to walk she still managed a turn or two before collapsing into her basket. Instinctive behaviour - or inherited? What's the difference?

"The trick, of course, is to be able to recognize it in ourselves. What behaviors do we humans senselessly repeat over and over because of some unquestioned internal rule? What entirely avoidable loop of stupidity are we stuck in?"

True, we seekers of new ways of producing energy do try to envisage new approaches to the problem at each step along the path to the solution, and yet how many of us, on our individual paths, make assumptions commanded thus by some unquestioned internal rule. This rule could be based on some learned behaviour or 'fact' instilled in us from our earliest experiences - or an inherited instinct. But it's not necessarily one rule, whatever that may be, it's the trait of sphexishmess which lies behind our thought processes. To paraphrase a question from the article, What behaviors do we perpetual motionists repeat over and over because of some unquestioned internal rule? What entirely avoidable loop of stupidity are we stuck in?

We have been told that the secret of Bessler's wheel was simple, right? Right! And we know in our hearts that we cannot realistically expect to discover a new unknown law of physics which will allow Bessler's wheel to operate - well I don't anyway! And lastly we, at least, know that Bessler's wheel did actually work. So if we haven't discovered the secret of such a simple device which complies with the physical laws as we understand them - we must be being steered by sphexishness and being guided (misguided?) by some internal rule. We often use phrases such as, "think outside the box", apply lateral thinking", but these concepts still don't allow us to recognise and ignore certain rules inherent within our makeup. How do we circumvent these cast iron cognitive processes?

I think we have to take each step as if we were ignorant of the outcome of every possible configuration of mechanical parts. We must not assume anything, so all bets are off - the situation has drastically changed. Any guarantees, implications, or assumptions regarding its outcome no longer apply.(Thanks to http://www.urbandictionary.com/)

Then maybe we will find what Bessler found. In the mean time I continue to struggle to find the time to complete my own version of Bessler's wheel. If I'm right then the other method described in this blog, (also known as trial and error) will not be necessary as I think that Bessler did leave enough information behind him to build his wheel. But it's not so easy as just copying what you see in his drawings, but the clues are there.

JC

Wheel update - cylindrical weights for me!

Yesterday was my granddaughter Amy's eighteenth birthday so there was no wheeling done then, and on Monday we are holding a big get together for the whole extended family so I shall have to hide my work from prying eyes! There are some members of my family (not many!) who think I might be on to something and they always come to see how I'm progressing. But on Monday they'll be nothing for them to see.

The weights I've used for the last few years are not suitable for the current construction so I've bought some new fishing weights, made from non-toxic lead. They are ideal as they are round discs.

The problem has been that the former weights were cut from a length of solid steel squared rod, so were rectangular in shape. I drilled a hole through the middle of each one, but slightly off-set and this has worked fine until now! The part of the mechanism to which they attach needs to be able to move freely, but the weights always try to hang downwards which is fine for some positions.In the current design, during rotation the weights continue to try to hang downwards and this causes them to interfere with the mechanism. I can't fix the weights without fixing the mechanism. The answer is simple. I need to use round or cylindrical weights, that can turn without affecting the mechanisms and remain balanced. Cylindrical weights! Sounds familiar.

I know I could use heavy flat washers but they too have problems. The only ones I can find have holes in the middle which are too large. But fisherman's weights are perfect. I only had to drill a hole in the middle to attach them and they are really heavy.

I am using ten weights and I can imagine that with the Kassel wheel containing two systems, one the reverse of the other, Bessler would have used twenty weights, and at 4 pounds a weight that comes to 80 pounds plus of course the weight of the wooden wheel.  This is just my opinion and not to be taken as factual, although I'm convinced!

JC

"The clues are there." as David Frost used to say.

Some readers are getting impatient for results but unfortunately other aspects of life have a way interfering with our best intentions. I continue to work on finishing the wheel as and when I can but as I've said before, I sometimes get a few minutes and that is all. My mother-in-law was in hospital but is now in a respite home for a few weeks. We visit her daily for a hour or so, but it is a 40 minute drive each way and we therefore lose a big chunk of each afternoon from our free time. So - time is tight..

What I can say is that the clues continue to support my view that I am on the right track and I will repeat that the best place for getting confirmatory information is the 'Toys' page - MT.138-139-140-141. The problem with this page is that unless you have already arrived at the right design, the page is almost meaningless. What the drawings on that page do, is help to refine the final design. That is what I'm engaged in when I can get the time.

Every drawing on that page supplies information, but they do not represent actual physical designs. As an example I can point out the slightly longer uprights on 'D' compared with 'C' - this is important information and without it would cause a problem which is only discernable if the right design is in front of you. Having said, that I worked out the solution to the problem when I saw it but it was good to have the confirmation that it was why Bessler had drawn the figures in that way and it was deliberate and not an incidental variation.

 

JC

Bessler's wheel worked by simple mechanics - no fancy physics required.

Now that I know how Bessler's wheel worked it has become a source of some concern to me to see so many people trying promote their own theories about how it worked. There are as many pet theories out there as there are people, I think, and each is as certain as I am that we are right.

Most people agree that it cannot violate any known laws of physics, therefore we must have erred in some way or perhaps be missing some crucial detail about the way gravity works. Perhaps, others have speculated, we need to involve a second natural force such as CF, or ambient temperature variation or some other such extra piece of energy to help our wheel complete just one rotation. In fact it could not be more simple. There is indeed no need to call for some new kind of physical law or even a new interpretation of the existing laws, because Bessler's wheel worked quite readily, getting its energy from the force of gravity (via falling weights Trevor ;-)) with nothing more than the same understanding that we have all been taught. Karl understood that and that is why he was surprised that no one had discovered the solution before.

I know that we have all touched upon the solution and have moved onwards without considering how we might overcome any obstacles that appear to be insurmountable, and that in my opinion, is why Bessler succeed.  Having ruled out all other possibilities he returned to basics.

JC

Websites being revised to include new information about Bessler's wheel.

I've temporarily removed everything from my websites at www.besslerswheel.com and www.gravitywheel.com -t hey will be updated and republished as soon as possible, but I am completely rewriting them as I have made some significant progress in my research into how Bessler's wheel worked and how it was constructed. Some of the content on the websites needs to be cahnged. This does not mean that everything on the websites was wrong, but there has been some over-complication of the principle, which seems now to be very simple. In fact I cannot understand why I ignored it for most of my life.

The truth is that I think we have all been on the right track at some stage but have not had the advantage I have recently had of being able to study Bessler's clues to the point where I now understand all of them including a lot that I don't think anyone else has noticed, (although I may be wrong about that, as I have no idea what others know or are working on!)

It has become clear to me as I have been building my latest construction, just how many clues there are which are overlooked simply because there are so many of them and they are therefore not suspected of being clues. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Bessler's claim that 'no one else could have succeeded because no one else took so much trouble to try every possible variation', was nothing more than the simple plain unvarnished truth! As my latest construction progresses I notice small details in his papers which guide me and also cause me to make some corrections to what I'm doing, and to be honest without those clues I wouldn't have chance of succeeding. I probably won't anyway, but I like to think I will!

One detail I was working on, the design of which is revealed by Bessler, seemed to me to be wrong as it appeared to be counter-intuitive, but I thought I'd try it anyway as things weren't working out, and it turned out to be the solution to my problem. This has proved something to me - if and when a gravitywheel is succesfully made and is working, some people have questioned whether we will ever know if will be the same design as Bessler's - my answer is that if mine works I shall know and can prove that it is identical to Bessler's, apart perhaps from some possible minor variations in the sizes of the parts.

As I have now said several times, I shall publish all of this information whether the wheel works or not. I can do this because I know that the clues I've understood are real and apply to the wheel but it is also possible that I have neglected some detail that prevents success. Maybe someone else can complete the task, but first I want to have an attempt at a successful PoP.

JC

My Final POP Prototype? ... Again!

I'm just coming to the end of the construction of my latest design for Bessler's wheel. I've maintained my belief in the same concept which makes his wheel possible for some considerable time as, for me, it is the only explanation for his success. The number of ways one can achieve this is limited but does not rule out severl variations, each of which is designed to move a weight a sufficiently large distance, quickly.

I have always born in mind his comment about the importance of incorporating his 'connectedness principle' within the design and although I had an idea what this might refer to, it wasn't until I saw the first completed mechanism on my new wheel, working, that I realised why he referred to it in this way.

As I was carefully assembling the pieces that made up the mechanism I was musing on the problem I might have in describing my interpretation of his 'connectedness principle' and I realised that it was a very good description, if you had to do it in two words, one of which was 'principle'. 'Connectedness' may seem like a made-up word but it is perfect for this situation.

I hope to more or less finish this version in a day or so, working around visiting familes, because it's Easter, but there will be some minor adjustments to make before it is completely finished. I know this because the connectedness principle requires some adjustments, the precise amounts of which, won't become obvious until the wheel's mechanisms are finished and fitted and shown to be working properly.

I'll let you know what happens, but even if it should fail to rotate I am convinced that I am on the right lines - the only lines to success.

JC

www.theorffyreuscode.com updated again

I have updated www.theorffyreuscode.com again. It occurs to me that perhaps not many people understand why I have continued to search for clues among Bessler's works when I should be trying to build working model of the wheel. The truth is I do both.

Even as I construct a new design, I continue to ponder on Bessler's clues. I cannot ignore the strong hints that Bessler left regarding clues to the wheel's workings. He left textual clues which were designed to both intrigue and mystify. He left pictorial clues which achieved the same result and if all he wanted was to mystify, then it might appear to be a hopeless task to try to make sense of what he left.

But I'm convinced that he wanted us to learn his secret. Consider this. He demonstrated his wheel over a period of at least eleven years during which time it was thoroughly examined by a host of people intent on proving him a fraud - and no one ever found reason to disbelieve his claims. He allowed one person to observe the inside, who was known as a man of utter integrity, who said the claims were real. Even after he left this man's patronage Bessler designed a variety of machines some of which were based on his wheel. He never ever gave up, and maintained his innocence of any suggestion of fraud, 'til his death.

Given the above one must assume that he was telling the truth. It seems to me to be absurd to give up trying decipher his clues when he made it so clear that he wanted posthumous fame as the inventor, if he couldn't have it while he lived. To achieve fame after he'd gone he attempted to ensure that sufficient clues were left beind to help someone to replicate the wheel. The clues had to be obscure or someone might have deciphered everything while he lived, so it was never going to be easy.

Consequently he flooded his published works with clues of an intriguing nature, which by themselves, were of little help in actually building his wheel. He did everything in his power to make people understand that the solution was there if they looked. But so far few people other than myself have researched the possibility that the answer lies encoded within his publications.

My self-imposed task has been to underline any and all clues that I find, but so far they are merely eye-catchers which interest and intrigue us but don't provide the answer. But they were designed to lead to that answer and that is why I list every piece of code I find, with my interpretation of the meaning behind each. That is what my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ is for.

There is no doubt that we are in desperate straits searching for a new form of energy, if there is a half a chance that Bessler's wheel will answer, than we should be doing all in our power to solve it, replicate it and use it.

JC

Will Bessler's wheel be a practical solution, if it works?

I wonder hown practical Bessler's wheel wll turn out to be, if it ever gets re-invented. How will the world react to the news that Bessler's wheel had been replicated and proven to work?

80 per cent of electricity globally is produced by steam powered turbines - an amazingly old-fashioned concept when you think about it. These massive generators can produce 2,000,000 hp or 1,500,000 kW. They are huge beasts and I find it hard to picture what size Bessler's wheel would have to be to achieve the same output, and yet George Westinghouse was able to scale up Sir Charles Parsons' original steam turbine, which had already been increased from a 7.5 kW set up to units of 50,000 kW capacity, by some 10,000 times. I'm sure that a similar exercise could be applied to Bessler's wheel to generate enough electricity for individual consumption.

Bessler mentioned the possibility of constructing a number of wheels in series and if they were all mounted on one axle it is obvious that one could scale up a wheel of unrestricted depth, mounted on an axle of say, 50 foot, with similarly enlarged weights operating in the same way as in the original design. But is this the way it would develop? There could be a massive reduction in demand from the centrally placed power generators if there was an equally large uptake of individual designed home electricity generators.

So how much electricity does the average home consume? Hard to answer because different homes use different methods for heating and/or air conditioning but if one wanted to eliminate the need for oil and natural gas then you would require Bessler's wheel to produce more than enough electricity to power everything.

It has proved difficult to obtain a figure but I found a site which suggested that the average American house uses approximately 12,000kwh per year which is about 32 kwh a day. Of course that figure may be wildy out, but as a guide it will do. There are a number of generators currently available, producing that kind of output, some cost more than $10,000! However these do of course include the very expensive diesel engines required to rotate the armature and the replacing of that with the much simpler Bessler's wheel would reduce the price considerably. I'm sure that given the amount of competition, improvenments in design and sheer quantity of entrepreneurial manufacturers, the price would drop just as it does in the world of improving TVs and computers.

This drop in demand for centrally produced electricity could go a long way towards making the nuclear/fossil-fuelled power stations almost redundant. I guess there would still be a need for limited amounts of electricity from a central location for distribution to industrial manufactureres, and those who have not been able to take advantage of the new devices. Perhaps those larger power generators might still be able to adopt an enlarged Bessler's wheel.

I know this is just a dream, but it could happen.

JC