What do you do when you've done it?

On the assumption that I think I will succeed in this venture and finally make  a gravity-enabled wheel turn continuously, what then?

I don't mean, do I patent it, release a video of it on youtube or sell it on ebay!  No, I mean what is the actual next step?  I wouldn't want to immediately announce it on besslerwheel forum or stick a video of it on youtube; no, the question is hard to answer until you are in that actual position (I'm not, yet.)

I have a rough plan which involves telling a few highly respected guys I have known for many years, simply that I have done it - no details at that time.  

The next thing is to consider discussing it with two other guys who I'm equally certain I can trust; one is a film producer and the other... well I mustn't give too much away or he'll recognise himself.

Professor Hal Puthoff was very supportive of myself and my book for many years, and offered to bring wealthy philanthropic investment to assist in the development of the machine once it was proved.  I could contact him to see what his response was.  But there are suspicions about his responsibilities - US Government energy advisor, ex-CIA.  Seriously, I doubt there is a problem but one should weight up each case and only decide after a careful assessment of the pros and cons. 

At this point I look at my hopelessly cobbled-together machine and think to myself, 'do I really want the world to see this monstrosity as the first of its kind since Bessler's? No I answer, I must make a new model with nice shiny parts and some fancy paintwork - and none of the thousand or so unused holes!'

Now this all takes some time to deal with, and so I guess that if I were the lucky one, I might just go silent for a week or two in order to try get everything in order before the s*/!/t hits the fan.  Maybe it would take a month who knows? Should I remain silent or just keep rabbiting on about life and the wheel .... and say nothing to anyone?  I really don't know and perhaps I won't need to if some else gets there before me.

Of course if I do go quiet, I doesn't necessarily mean I've found it - it means I can't think of anything sensible to say - like today!

  

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Did Bessler invent two different designs for his gravity-wheels?

In the middle of the night before last, I awoke and had a revelation or perhaps a sudden inspiration. I had thought of a way to drive a gravity-wheel using a different design concept.  I studied it in my mind, turning it this way and that, and I thought it looked liked it would go and was a winner... and then I fell asleep.  Of course in the cold light of dawn I recalled it and thought how silly, this won't work at all!  The idea that came to me was a completely different way of making Bessler's wheel work.  My secret principle was irrelevant to the working of this new design and the whole thing appeared to be an utterly different configuration to the one I've been working on for the last eighteen months.  But I dismissed it as unworkable, although the odd thing was that all of Bessler's clues still fitted perfectly!

Now at this point I was going to use this so-called revelation to demonstrate how easy it is to fit Bessler's clues to our preconceived ideas, misleading us and taking us up the garden path on the trail of red herring and sending us on a slow boat to China (I love mixing my metaphors!).  BUT....this morning I was considering for the umpteenth time, Bessler's (and mine) obsession with the number 5 and suddenly a thought occurred to me why he felt it was so important.

This thought suddenly brought back into focus my dream from the previous night and with five mechanisms I could see how it might work after all.  I need to do some tests to confirm that my idea is either useless or the key to an alternative version of his wheel - and perhaps prove a theory that crops up from time to time, that the clues that we all study, refer to two different concepts and that is why we have failed so far - but I will post more details soon.  

The version I have been working on all this time has yet to prove to my satisfaction that there has to be five mechanisms, but I can see immediately why this latest concept needs five, and I will just say that this one is so simple, anyone could make it, even me!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Newton's gravity shield and the potential for inertial thrust in Bessler's Wheel

People may recall that in my biography of Johann Bessler, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?", I described a paper from Sir Isaac Newton's notebook in which he speculates that "gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down. Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by reflecting or refracting ye, if so a perpetual motion may bee made one of these two ways." Adjacent to these words, Newton added two sketches of perpetual motion powered by the 'flux of the gravitational stream'.  I included this information in support of my argument that gravity could ultimately be used as a source of energy - if it was good enough for Newton then it was good enough for me.

"The term gravitational shielding refers to a hypothetical process of shielding an object from the influence of a gravitational field. Such processes, if they existed, would have the effect of reducing the weight of an object.  However experimental evidence to date indicates that no such effect exists. Gravitational shielding is considered to be a violation of the equivalence principle and therefore inconsistent with both Newtonian theory and general relativity."  Thanks to wikipedia again.

There is an irony in the last sentence of the above paragrah, 'gravitational shielding ....... is inconsistent with both Newtonian theory and general relativity,' seeing that Newton himself suggested that gravity shielding might be possible.

I was suprised to discover that research into this concept continues. The consensus view of the scientific community is that gravitational shielding does not exist, but there have been occasional investigations into this topic, such as those funded in 1999 by NASA.  Scientists Ning Li and D.G. Torr at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, wrote several papers in major journals on the relationship between superconductors and gravitation. And there are the "gravity shielding” experiments at Tampere University in Finland carried out by Dr. Podkletnov.

This of course has nothing to do with my own suggestion that a successful Bessler's wheel might be adapted and driven to provide directional, or inertial thrust ...sideways and upwards!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The Perpetual Motionists are not the same as we Bessler-wheelers.

An article in support of we perpetual motionists was brought to my attention by my good friend James, at an extremely apposite moment as I had already written this short piece for my next blog.  The article was entitled, "Why do They Ridicule Perpetual Motion and Hate the Perpetual Motionists?”

I enjoyed the article even if I did not completely accept his many arguments in support of us.  But his use of the word perpetual motioionists was what I objected to and which prompted me to write about the use of this term.

It has been a a matter of mild concern for me for a number of years, this habit of calling us perpetual motionists.  Such labels do us no favours in my opinion, because the very term, perpetual motion, suggests a degree of naivety in us, which is untrue; most of us are experienced and knowledgeable about the world of physics and in particular mechanics.  Perpetual motion means literally, continuous motion or activity, which of itself is quite accurate.  The problem lies in people's associations of the term Perpetual Motionists with Creationists,  Flat Earthers and other pseudosciences  which then attracts the unwelcome attention of the sceptics, the scornful and their derisory comments.  But there are reasons for their contempt for our work.

Perpetual motion implies self-perpetuating motion  which in its turn, suggests that the motion is derived from some inexaustable inner energy source, which is factually and theoretically impossible. The energy has to come from somewhere and since it's impossible to store unlimited energy within a confined space, it must come from outside.  But because so little was known about gravity (and still is) no-one could offer an explanation which would show how it might assist in this continuous motion.

Because continuous motion has to have an external supply of energy, such a term could also imply that combustion engines which require an external continuous supply of energy in the form of petroleum are also perpetual motion machines; and electric motors too, as long as they are supplied with electricity; and steam engines as long as they have steam.  They are all perpetual motion machines apparently, all moving continuously as long as they have the fuel necessary to their action.

We usually call engines by a name which includes their energy source, so we have steam engines, petrol engines, diesel engines, electric motors etc.  We could call Bessler's wheel a gravity engine or motor, or a gravity wheel, but then we come up against those who say that, unlike, petrol, diesel and electricity, gravity is not an energy source. In fact those so-called energy sources I mentioned, steam, petrol, diesel and electricity are not by themselves energy sources.  They each require a combination of effects to occur at the right moment to generate the power associated with them, and the same applies to gravity.  Without those other energy sources working together with other combinations they wouldn't provide energy either and without gravity, Bessler's wheel would not work.  We need gravity to enable the weights to fall, and it is then up to us to find a way to generate continuous rotation from that initial fall.

BUT.... there is one major difference between the ones I mentioned above and gravity.  They are each fed into their specific machine via pipe or cable; gravity, on the other hand, is present everywhere both inside and outside the gravity wheel. Why do I think it iks still possible to make use of gravity to drive a gravity wheel? The answer as always, lies in analogy.  I have from time to time likened the action of gravity to the force of the wind.  Wind is also everywhere about the windmill and it is the blades of the windmill which are moved by the wind and so it is with gravity, the weighst are moved by its force.   

So deride perpetual motionists if you wish but don't lump us Bessler-wheelers together with them.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

July 2012 Update

The hot weather has arrived at last, just in time for the Olympics, but sunshine means I have some catching up to do in the garden, however at least the rain gave me an opportunity to do some work on my wheel.  

The last piece of the jigsaw dropped into place a few weeks ago and I am confident that this model will work. Oddly enough it was the failure of the mechanism to act as I wanted it to do, that led me to the final piece of the puzzle - and to the revelation of one of Bessler's clues that has somewhat mystified me over a considerable length of time.  I should know by now that Bessler habitually used his clues to either contain two ways to access them, or two different clues.  I am make an adjustment to the design which will create the movement I've been seeking.  I don't know how long it will take to complete, but not long.

There is a slight variation to the parts used compared to the last time I described them, but the basic concept remains the same, plus of course the secret principle which I'm not ready to share yet. 

So there are five mechanisms operating according to the way a swing works or 'kiiking' or parametric oscillation, if you prefer.  As I've mentioned before, this concept of using the mechanics of the swing was suggested  to me by professor Hal Puthoff as a way forward, some years ago and I subsequently found the idea introduced on the Besslerwheel forum by Scott Ellis way back in 2002, and if I'm proved right, due credit should go to them.  

The swing mechanics are only part of the solution and in addition to what I have called the secret principle there is also one more ingredient which is the one I have added in the last couple of months. So the mechanisms are almost all complete and testing should begin within a couple of weeks and any delay is down to getting the final adjustment right. Bessler himself commented that when he 'constructed my greatwork, the 6-ell diameter wheel (the Merseberg wheel). It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted.'

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's stressed life.

I was looking at Bessler's portrait and I noticed the condition of his nails.  They all appear to be bitten down very short.  I assume this is an accurate portrayal and the poor condition of the nails is probably a symptom of the ever-present stress in his life.  At that time, some four years or so had passed since his first discovery of the secret of gravity-enabled wheels and yet he had nothing to show for it.  He had moved three times and built three wheels, and smashed them to pieces, and suffered the increasing attempts to have his reputation destroyed by his bitter enemies, Gärtner, Borlach and Wagner.

A brief search on the subject reveals that onychophagia, or nail biting, is a common compulsive habit.  It's believed to be a symptom of stress, and in severe cases is accompanied by anxiety attacks, palpitations of the heart, headaches, dizziness and sweating.

When paranoia is included, as seems to have been the case with Bessler, typically the subject has obsessive thoughts and will harbour suspicions and worries about other people.  They believe that something bad will happen, and that others are responsible, and although their belief may be exaggerated, the central thought which is present with paranoia is a sense of threat.

Bessler himself admits that he was sometimes depressed and axious and apparently anxiety and depression can act as triggers for paranoid thoughts in some people. If they’re anxious they are likely to be on edge and more fearful than normal. Depression can lower self-esteem, and make them more likely to misinterpret other people’s intentions towards them. They are afraid that their enemies, as they perceive them, mean them financial harm, stealing from them, damaging their property or tricking them into giving away their money.

I'm no psychologist but I think that is a close match to Bessler.

PS Update on my wheel building to follow soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...are best ignored.

I wrote this to remind me of the heat of my angry reaction to the jeers and sneers I suffered in the early days - but on this day, in the cool of early dawn such gibes seem of little consequence and are best ignored.

I used to surf the net looking at comments about Bessler and it was clear then, and nothing has changed, that very few people know any details about him nor about the evidence which has convinced most of us here that he was genuine.  I read many comments to the effect that we were all wasting our time in trying to prove that he was not a con man.  Other remarks said that we had forgotten or never learned the true facts about gravity, force and friction etc.  But in fact I had a good education and since I left school I continued to learn and try to understand everything I could about the subject and yet I still believe Bessler was genuine because my training as an engineer convinces me.  So instead of merely claiming that Bessler was not a con man, I have tried to explain his success within current scientific laws.

I would describe the tenor of some of the comments as scornful laughter at our stupidity.  A common remark was that history is full of con-men like Bessler, attempting to defraud their investors and customers with promises of perpetual motion. At that time I used to be a regular on Jerry Decker's old keelynet forum, (http://keelynet.com/) one contributer called me a snake-oil salesman, a predictably offensive term but one I had to look up at the time, as I hadn't come across it before.  I checked and it's "a derogatory term used to describe quackery, the promotion of fraudulent or unproven medical practices. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with questionable and/or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, the term snake oil salesman may be applied to someone who sells fraudulent goods, or who is a fraud himself," thanks to wikipedia.  Frankly that is quite an offensive comment given that I am not trying to defraud anyone.

So when this is all over and the proof is out there for every one to see - that is, Bessler wasn't a fake and he really did have a continuously turning wheel - how many of those hardened sceptics will apologise for their contemptuous, disdainful comments which made myself and others who support Bessler's claims, feel despicable and unworthy?  Of course the answer is none, because they could only judge us on what they knew, and little of Bessler's work has filtered through and what has, has had to compete against the mainstream science which teaches us that Bessler's claims violate the laws of science.  But I look forward with tremendous enthusiasm and a certain amount of gloating, to the day when it becomes apparent that they were all wrong, and we are owed an enormous apology and a meek admission that they should not have been so patronising, smug and just plain obnoxious.

So I used to get all fired up by the nastier comments directed towards me but now I just let it pass me by and I rarely get into an argument with anyone because the only way to persuade them to see my point of view is for someone, anyone, to produce a working version of Bessler's wheel - and I think that will happen very soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Does size matter? And other questions about Bessler's wheel.

Bessler said, [paraphrased here] that he could make his machines in such a way that, big or small, he could make the resulting power small or big as he chose. He could get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. I was thinking about that and I guess the obvious ways to increase speed and/or power would include using more mechanisms within one wheel, or increasing the size of the wheel, and using more wheels on the same axle.  But I wonder what effect increasing the size of each weight would have?

Would it increase the wheel's speed or would it just provide more power or torque at the same speed?  More speed doesn't necessarily lead to more torque but more weight should increase it.

How would you increase speed without increasing the size of the weights?  Adding another wheel would effectively increase the size of the weights, but if you halved their size and used two wheels on one axle I wonder what if anything, the resultant change in speed might be?  Having double the number of mechanisms should have an effect on speed.

Increasing the size of the wheels but using the same weights suggests that the distances travelled by the weights within the wheel might generate more speed but would it produce more torque?  In theory yes, because the weights might be applying their mass at a greater distance from the axis. On the other hand although more speed might be possible would the greater distances travelled by the weights actually have a slowing effect when compared to a smaller version?

I realize we need to know what the design of the mechanisms were in order to know what the answers to the questions would be, but sometimes asking questions helps us make progress in discovering something about the nature of the mechanisms.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Do you show signs cognitive dissonance?

Yesterday at last, I managed to find some time to work on my project.  I am using my own interpretations of Bessler's clues, as will anyone who is trying to build Bessler's wheel, and those interpretations can be viewed as being highly subjective as opposed to objective.  By that I mean that these interpretations are in the end just an opinion whereas objective ideas are factual and provable.  But at some point my subjective opinions will become objective and true, I hope!  

Of course such opinions as I hold are biased because they are arrived at through a succession of revelations relating to the supposed clues I have found.  But because an objective piece of information needs to be factual and unbiased my view and the expression of my ideas can't be anything other than subjective.  So until I can either produce a working model or publish a complete explanation of my ideas, I can't give out any objective information until I've finished building my wheel.

Obviously I think I'm right or I wouldn't bother building the wheel, but discussing them here does not seem advisable as it would take too long to explain how I got to where I am. If I did try a shortened explanation it would miss the sequence of discoveries which confirm my interpretations are correct.  Some months ago I began to write a detailed document and I planned to put out a video with pictures and some filming to explain my reasoning, but sadly I haven't had time to continue with this but I shall get back to work on it as soon as possible.

As I have continued along this path I have discovered numerous additional clues which confirm what were previously just my interpretations of some clues.  When the full explanation comes out in due course I think people will amazed at the number of unarguable clues, found everywhere within his works, and I'm not only referring to the number 5.

An acquaintance who is a psychologist, told me that I exhibited typical signs of cognitive dissonance because on the one hand because I had been taught that gravitywheels were impossible and I believed it, but on the other hand I was trying to prove that they were possible and potentially valuable machines and this was causing me some conflict.  I had to look it up to understand what he was getting at.

Apparently if you hold two or more opposing ideas or beliefs it causes you discomfort.  Mountain climbers know the risk of death is ever present but they continue to climb; smokers continue to smoke even though they know it may kill them eventually.  To relieve the discomfort caused by these conflicting beliefs, we all attempt to reduce the dissonance by altering existing beliefs, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.

That psychologist made me feel as if I was someone who suffered from some kind of weird rare psychological delusion and might be a step away from the madhouse!  But the fact of the matter is that I don't feel any discomfort with my apparently dissonant beliefs, so either I have succeeded in altering my existing beliefs or I've reduced their importance.  

I think the former has occurred, but it shows you what a load of old tosh these so-called experts spout from time to time. According to him we all show signs of cognitive dissonance! Of course there are some who think my attic's a little dusty....  

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.