Wheel update

I completed the 'improved' version of my wheel and I thought I'd got it, as it began spinning of its own accord . It completed five turns before stopping and reversing a little. I found one of the mechanisms had 'overshot ' its stop and become locked. I freed it and repeated the experiment and it turned the five or six turns before it locked again. My design concept seems ok but delivery is not so hot. I'm redesigning the way the mechanisms work. They will accomplish the same end in the same way but the rotation of the mechanism allows to much lateral sway and the stops don't always capture the moving levers and stop them.

I know you haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about but I thought I'd let you know that it still doesn't work, but I'm on the case and confidence remains high!

I've lost count of the number of times my workmanship has proved not up to the task required, but this time I took my time in assembling the parts, but sometimes less haste is difficult to maintain and I admit I rushed the final assembly and to my chagrin, the quality has been less than adequate.  Karl's comment on the simplicity of the design may give the impression that it was easy for a carpenter's boy to make, but it does not preclude the possibility of a ham-fisted mental genius cocking it up, not that I am that either - a mental genius.

If all else fails I will, in the end either publish my design or probably get help in making it, but I haven't reached that stage yet.

JC

Musings on Gravity

Trevor's comments about Besslers' wheel being a closed system got me thinking (thank you Trevor). I have posted an article at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ entitled, "Musings on Gravity". Any comments welcomed.

JC

Wheel update and Karl's comment

I'm working on the wheel again and I think (I hope) I know what was wrong with the last design and I'm reconfiguring the mechanism accordingly. I've found a way of making the correct weight rise upwards very quickly, at the right moment. This is something that is crucial in my design and also something that Bessler commented on.

There are other aspects to this design which have to be taken into account when arranging the actual range and position of the parts and this is something that Karl would have seen but almost certainly not recognised for its importance. Hence his comment that it was very simple. I have taken on board my own comments about sphexishness and tried not to make any assumptions in designing the new mechanical arrangenment, with the result that I have discovered that there is a variable which I had not appreciated before. I don't want to talk about it yet, but I will bring it up on the forum at a later date to get some feedback.

Finally to answer a couple of questions emailed to me, this rearrangement or reconfiguration of the mechanics does not mean I have abandoned the concept I have been working on, quite the opposite. The original concept is valid and unarguably the same as Bessler's, but there are variations possible within the design which improve the way it works and that is what I'm engaged on at the moment.

Regarding Karl's view of the machine's simplicity, I think someone commented similarly to my own view on the besslerwheel forum, that perhaps he had not appreciated how complex the design had to be; not complex in appearance, but requiring some very specific arrangement of the mechanism.  This I believe I know from my own work on this design and from the helpful hints given by Bessler.

I gave a small clue recently with my comment about opening windows.

JC

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