A new backplate for my PoP wheel

Because I'm now committed to building what I believe will be the (finally!) successful reconstruction of Bessler's wheel, I have retired my current backplate. That is the wooden disc upon which I have mounted numerous mechanisms over the last year or so. I have about fifteen retired backplates of assorted sizes and I should throw them out but they represent such a lot of time and effort that they seem like old friends and I'm loath to part with them. The one I've been using has so many holes in it that it looks like it will fall apart. Now, when I drill a new hole
there is every chance I'm going to drop part way into an existing one and produce an odd-shaped over-size hole. So a new backplate for my proof of principle wheel is a must. The old ones vary in size but the new one I made yesterday is only two foot in diameter, which is smaller than I usually use.

Normally I make the backplate much bigger to allow for alterations to the size of the mechanisms and the number of them and their range of movement but in this new one I don't need such a large backplate. The material I use for the mechanism is mild steel and I am able to use and reuse this over time. Obviously the parts get altered and reduced in size in some cases, but because the new design is so similar to the one I last used I don't need to alter it much, so some parts are exactly the same. Because of this I know exactly how big to make the backplate because I have the existing arms and I can plot their range of movement precisely and fit them into an area whose size is also known exactly. This can be one of the difficulties in designing and building something from scratch, you have to use a certain amount trial and error, in part, to discover how big to make it so that it will not come into conflict with other parts and at the same time, keep the range of movement within the confines of its selected area.

So today I was hoping to mark out on the backplate the positions of the various holes needed to support the mechanisms, drill and fit the supporting posts and try to make one working mechanism which performs at just the right moment and in the right way. Because once I have one of them acting in the desired manner, its just a case of copying the same for the other ones.
That was in theory! In fact I had other calls on my time so I didn't quite get that far today.

JC

No news is good news, on holiday or not!

I've enjoyed my break away from the news, the internet and all input about Bessler, but now I'm back and raring to go!

I spent several hours a day going over and over, in my mind and on paper,the best way to proceed and I believe I've covered every aspect of the reconstruction. It's not so much that it was wrong and needed redesigning but more a case of re-examining how else I might get the existing mechanism to operate at the right time. In the process I have altered it slightly and have made it simpler and there is less chance of any of the constituent parts coming into conflict with each other.

What is really interesting is that I think I've discovered (or re-discovered) an interesting leverage design which certainly complies with everything on the 'toys' page and which I, at least, have never come across before. It ties in neatly with parts A, B, both C's and D's and the E on the toys page. It is as far from what I originally thought the parts on the toys page meant as it could possibly be and yet it looks and feels right. I know that this is neither a suitably scientific approach nor a desirable engineering attitude but sometimes you have to go with your gut feeling.

For those who have no idea what the 'toys' page is about I can only ask you to read my biography of Bessler. It would take up too much space here!

I've written out a detailed sequence for the build and have drawn numerous sketches of each part to try to obviate any more errors due to haste and carelessness. So.....this time?

I've got to do a few things to do first and then I will get on with the reconstruction. I feel that time is slipping by and if I don't get this right soon then I have to make the decision about publishing everything. It is tempting to continue to worry at this problem in the hope of success, but I have to admit that the past thirty odd years have not seen success, as many people keep reminding me, yet I don't believe I have ever been nearer to victory.

JC

Spanish break.

Because I'm away to Spain for some R & R, and may have limited access to the internet I probably won't post anything on my blog for a couple of weeks. I have a plan written up for my return as I have worked out precisely what needs to be altered in the design of the mechanisms, but I shall mull over the design during my break. With luck I shall be back on course for reconstructing Bessler's wheel on my return.

It surprises me that, given everything I know about the mechanism, I should have made such a simple error as not ensuring that the mechanism operated at the correct time in the rotation of the wheel. I wonder how many other trials by other would-be inventors failed because of something similar, something that maybe went through unnoticed. How many near-misses have their been?

Lastly, thank you for the many messages of encouragement. I had no idea so many people were following this blog.

"Una cerveza, por favor!" - Make that "Una grande cerveza, por favor!" Just practising you know ;-)

Sadly for us Brits, we seem to be a country that is fast developing a binge-drinking culture with the predictable side affects of under age drinking. In Spain you see hardly any drunks and yet they appear to indulge for several hours a day. It must be the drip drip approach that allows them to maintain their dignity despite being several sheets to the wind. In the UK we seem to hit the ground running and attempt to get as many jars of the strongest nectar available down our necks in the shortest possible time - with predictable results.

What's that saying? Oh yes - Alcohol, the cause of, and the solution to all of life's problems.

See you when I get back.

Ciao.

JC

Reconstruction analysed

I have spent time testing the reconstruction I created and following analysis of the wheel's action I am certain that the problem lies in timing. In the paper I have written in which I described the design and principle which underlies Bessler's wheel I made specific comment about the necessity to get the timing correct. It is therefore somewhat embarrasing to admit that I had forgotten to ensure that the weights, when moved, did so, not one moment before a particular point during each revolution. In fact they are acting too soon and having an effect which is
tending to counter the advantage they give towards rotation.

There are a couple of ways I can correct this and one of them is to lengthen the operating arm which moves the weight so that it is further on in the cycle when the action begins; and another is to try to delay the initiating action of the operating arm. I realise that this means nothing to anyone who hasn't seen the design, which is everyone, but I still want to keep people updated as to the state of play regarding my project.

The paper I referred to above is still being kept confidential for now.

JC

Bessler's wheel still stationary!

Well I said I'd report back, so here it is - unfortunately the latest design doesn't work. Despite this setback I remain confident because the information I have acquired from Bessler indicates that I'm on the right track. There are variables to this design and maybe others that I'm not aware of at this point so I need to go away and think about the alternatives. I'm unable to work on the reconstruction for now, anyway, as I have other plans for the next two weeks.

This news of my failure to finish with a working model will hearten many and disappoint others, but for me it is a case of keeping going. Because, as I have said before, I understand the concept which underlies the Bessler wheel and I have also managed to find some sketches of the actual mechanism, which will doubtless provoke a great deal of interest. It may be that I have misread the sketches and need to review them in a calmer state of mind.

The concept or principle upon which the Bessler wheel relies is simple and obvious once you know and, in response to more emails received, I can assure anyone reading this that there are no physical laws which will need revising to accomodate it. There is no doubt about this and I have no fears of anyone disagreeing with me once they understand the principle.

Of course there will be some who will say, 'share it - now!' But my mind is made up not to patent it (if I'm sufficiently lucky to succeed in this self-imposed task) and that could leave me potentially penniless for all my hard work, so once I give it away I have only the book to provide for me and my family. That's when I'll share everything.

JC

MIB, conspiracies and wacky wagers.

I have received two emails which have prompted me to comment on them here. The first one arrived a couple of weeks ago and suggested that by publicly recording my attempt to reconstruct Bessler's wheel, I might attract the attention of certain gentlemen-in-black (MIB). They, it seems, have only the best interests of the oil industry in mind and would take exception to my project. I was warned that they would visit me and takes steps to make me wish to stop my project.

I have always tried to keep an open mind about most things and I've tried to arrive at a satisfactory opinion by applying logic. It seems to me that the MIB, if they exist anywhere outside the vivid imagination of Hollywood, would not be against my project at all and might actually be inclined to support it. The whole world knows oil is short and likely to get shorter, so, from their own perspective, anything which helps to extend the life of the reserves of oil has to be seen as a bonus and therefore ought to be encouraged. The internet seems to be a breeding
ground for conspiracy theories, and if I believed most of the conspiracies I read about I would become totally paranoid (instead of only mildly). I incline to fatalism and if I'm to be a target for the MIB then there's nothing I can do about it.

The other email asked whether, seeing as I had not posted anything much this week, I had failed in my attempt to reconstruct Bessler's wheel, implying, perhaps, that I did not wish to admit it? Of course not, I have been diverted from my intended course by the usual mundane requirements of everyday living and although I try to get into my workshop daily, I can't always. I shall report success and failure equally with alacrity and honesty.

As for my reconstruction of Bessler's wheel, I have two mechanisms fitted and working and the rest assembled but not yet fitted to the backplate. I shall continue to work on it and hope that soon I will finish it.

It is strange world that I inhabit where the prospect of finishing this project and securing the future of my family takes second place to the necessary but trivial-seeming tasks of every day living, but then I can't really blame the family. I have after all, claimed to be on the verge of success for at least the last twenty years! They can't see inside my mind and know, as I do, that it really is nigh.

And finally, as they say on the news, the thought of offering odds against my producing a gravity-driven perpetual motion machine at any time in the future seems to have scared away the betting firm which had expressed an interest, so no dice! They were dithering over the exact definition of what constitutes perpetual motion and in the end decided not to offer odds.

JC

The wacky wager update

Well, two comments, one pro and one con and several emails, mostly for. I understand your point Lucius but there are needs which are not personal but which I would like to be able to satisfy if it were possible. My family has needs and there are others I could wish to help if I had the means, so for that reason as well as the others I mentioned before, I shall stick with my proposal to obtain odds against the creation of a gravity-driven wheel within the next year - and that has raised another issue.

I have been corresponding with one of the best known names in the gambling industry and it has become clear that they wish to use the term 'perpetual motion machine' and have the resulting device verified by the famous Science Museum. That seems very reasonable but I am concerned that when the time comes for verification the Science Museum's definition of perpetual motion might exclude my machine.

I have discussed this definition many many times and the whole thing seems to come down to the fact that a perpetual motion machine is defined as one which is excluded from all external sources of energy. I have always maintained that a gravitywheel obtains its energy for rotation from the force of gravity and since gravity is both external and internal to the gravitywheel it is not technically a perpetual motion machine although that is what they would have called it in Bessler's time.

I have compromised by suggesting that they could call it a 'gravity-powered perpetual motion machine'. I await their response.

JC

Blog colour change and mechanism update

Sorry for changing the look of my blog, but I'm trying to get to grips with it and increase the size of the blog posting window.

I have been working on redesigning the mechanism inside the wheel, because it sometimes locks in a half-way position. This is due to the close proximity of another part of the mechanism. I have changed one of the levers for a longer version and then I took up the extra length by creating a hump or bridge in part of its length. This enables it to pass over the offending obstacle in its path.

The mechanism moves freely now and does what I want it to do, so my next task is to assemble the remaining mechanisms in the same way as the first. This design won't suffice for a finished product but it will certainly do for a proof of principle model which is all I want.

In attempting to make this machine I have, over the years, used and reused various parts, and the part which has suffered the most is the backplate which is what I call the wooden supporting structure to which all the parts are attached. It is in the form of a three foot wide circular disc of MDF (medium density fibreboard). The current backplate is nearing the end of its useful life and will have to be pensioned off soon. The disc is so full of drilled holes from previous attempts at making a working model that now when I drill I often drill into an adjoining hole and when held up to the light the backplate looks like a representation of the sky at night!

I'd put up a picture but it has a number design features drawn on the backplate which might give someone a clue to the direction I'm taking.

JC

Should I bet on a certainty?

I wonder if it is possible to place a wager on the likelihood of the appearance, in the next twelve months, say, of a gravitywheel? If I am really convinced that I shall succeed in this venture then I suppose I should put my money where my mouth is and wager that I, or some other misguided fool, will indeed produce such a machine and one that works?

Certainly the rewards would be exceptional. I have yet to receive the exact odds available (I have applied for them) but suppose odds of 5000/1 against such a thing happening in the next year were offered; it might persuade me to part with say £50 or even £100 for the promise of upto half a £million!

The history of betting is full of off-the-wall wagers and this is almost respectable by comparison. At least I'm not betting that the earth will be governed by aliens by 2010 or that the Elvis will resurrect next year, which some have bet heavily on!

This wager has a certain attractiveness to it for me because it simplifies the actions under consideration should I succeed in my venture. I could just show the working wheel on youtube and then pocket the winnings from the wager.

No patents to worry about; no contracts to sign to sell the device ; instant availability for anyone with internet access - and of course the publishers would contact me for permission to publish my book instead of the other way around where I have currently papered the walls of my office with rejection letters.

Some may say that giving it away is foolish and I could earn tens of millions but the truth is I don't need millions, (just a couple!)


JC

Google Video and wheel update

I posted my video about Bessler and his code on youtube a while ago and I see that it is been downloaded 446 times - not as much as I'd hoped but perhaps word will get around and it will get more attention. I'm loading it here to put it on google video too in the hope of spreading the message that there is a solution to the energy crisis and global warming - and it is Bessler's wheel.

My work to replicate Bessler's wheel proceeds well! Yesterday I spent some time refining the movement of one of the mechanisms and discovered, in the process, the meaning of another of Bessler's clues, something I had puzzled over for a long time. It relates to the two angles that one of the levers must adopt in order to drive the wheel onward to the next stage. This new knowledge confirmed to me that I am on the right track and later today I hope to continue with my work. This just illustrates again the need to build these things and not just design them in a simulater or on paper alone - and I would not have discovered the meaning of Bessler's clue if I hadn't been building the mechanism.

Currently I am trying to rearrange the mechanism so that as one part crosses another the two don't get entangled; something that it is prone to at the moment. Rearranging the mechanism without altering its effect is not particularly easy or quick but it is necessary for success. I'll post details of my progress (or not) in a day or two. JC

Optimism vs pessimism

I anticipated being able to publish good news this week but I can't yet. It's not because my efforts to replicate Bessler's wheel have failed (again!) no, other factors have prevented me for returning to my workshop, so success is still eagerly anticipated. I never fail to be amazed at the enormous optimism I continue to have that I shall win this thing - unless someone else gets there first!

And this is the key to success. It has always been a source of irritation to me that here in my home country, England, we seem to suffer an all-pervading atmosphere of negativity while across the water in the USA the opposite is true. There, optimism and patriotism vie with each other for supremacy. Here we see headlines such as 'pig flu stronger than we thought' and 'it hasn't gone away', while in America they say, 'the flu virus is milder than we thought'. And this is representative of the difference in attitudes that is so obvious. How can there be such a dichotomy of attitude coming from two countries reportedly using the same language and sharing a common heritage and so many ideals?

Given the above comments you might assume that the successful solution will come from someone living in the US, but for our size this country (Britain) has produced more innovative inventions than any other and I look forward to continuing that process.

JC

Bessler's Code will be revealed.

Over the last couple of years I have managed to decipher or decode some of Bessler's hidden information and while this has been useful in designing potential working gravity wheels, it hasn't so far, led to success. What it has done is allow me to rule out a number of potential designs because they don't fit the criteria I have extracted from Bessler's code. I am almost there and it has become something of a trial for me to read the various valiant and imaginative attemps to draw conclusions from what Bessler said, and yet say nothing.

My problem is that I am finding it hard to resist the urge to spill the beans - to reveal what I have discovered. Can you not imagine the satisfaction to be gained by explaining what Bessler meant and showing the proof? It would be a glorious and fitting end to my years of research, but I am determined to resist this temptation and go for the longer view. I am continuing to finalise my book which will reveal all anyway but if I can complete the wheel first then I can reveal the secret of Bessler's code then anyway.

As Karl, the Landgrave said, the mechanism is extremely simple - and I can add that the codes too, are extremely simple, at least those that I have managed to decipher are.

Don't forget, if you want to get a quick rundown on Bessler and the codes watch my video at:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

JC

A little further around the corner...

I finished my latest prototype wheel yesterday and it still didn't move continuously. But this is where the advantage of building each model wins over simulation. When I build the first mechanism I always fit it to the wheel and then check it out for timing and range of movement. Once it all looks perfect, I assume it will work, but in this instance it wasn't until all the mechanisms were fitted that I realised that the additional ones had the effect of retarding the timing of the movements of each mechanism.

Actually seeing this in action enabled me to understand why it was still not moving and I thought of a minor alteration to make which was, if I say so myself, pretty dammed ingenious! This variation also explained something that had still got me puzzled over something Bessler revealed in one of his encoded clues. So it's back to the workshop for a couple more days. There is no way a simulation would have thrown up this solution so I shall stick to making my wheels by hand.

JC

Success around the corner?

This week I hope to finish my latest version of Bessler's wheel. This is the most confident I have been to date, at this stage.

Usually I am quite calm, or even sceptical at the prospect of discovering that my design works because, as I'm making it, I don't get the right 'gut' feeling about it, but this time....

Confidence is high but we'll see. I have been close many, many times before.

I'll post something in a few days about what happened - or didn't.

JC

Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?

It seems to me that recently, in many forums, Bessler's wheel is being referred to as a perpetual motion machine (PMM or PM machine) more often than it used to be. I think that this is a mistake because using such names brings with it a lot of subjective cultural and emotive colouration in addition to the explicit meaning of term. The term 'perpetual motion' is often used in a perjoritive way in referring to the subject and those who support Bessler's claims are leaving themselves open to even more ridicule than we already suffer if they continue to use the term when, in my opinion, it is inaccurate, and should be replaced by some other term which describes it more succinctly. Perpetual Motion machines are defined as ones which don't have access to any external source of energy. They are isolated systems relying on their own intrinsic energy and are wholly independent of any other object, action or consequence. Such machines violate the law of conservation of energy.

Bessler's wheel relied on gravity for its energy. Now you can argue that gravity cannot be the sole source of energy for the wheel, but without it, it would not turn. Gravity pervades our world; it permeates all matter in and on the earth and the space around us, so it is in effect both internal and external to any machine which relies on it to work. As such it is not a perpetual motion machine, and not an isolated system,and it does not therefore, break the law of conservation of energy. It is, rather, a gravity wheel, or a gravity engine in the way that a petrol engine is called that because it runs on petrol; or a gravity mill in the same way that a windmill is referred to, thus, because it is driven by the wind.

Old examples of such machines are a windmill which drives a fan which pumps air at the windmill causing it to turn. A modern example would include a battery which drives an electricity generator which charges the battery. Both impossible because they derive no extra energy from outside their own little worlds and are thus isolated systems.

Bessler's wheel did, according to the inventor, use gravity to turn it, so it was a gravity wheel, regardless of whether you think it needed an additional source of energy to complete the cycle. So I must ask those who discuss such matters to please use a term other than PM when describing Bessler's wheel or we shall never get the serious attention of the scientific community we seek.

JC

To simulate or fabricate?

I answered an email recently concerning my belief that actually making models is preferable to using simulation software and more likely to end in success, and I think I should enlarge on it here.

When I said in an earlier blog, that this type of experimentation couldn't be done with any kind of modeling program, what I meant was that, yes, you can test an existing design with simulation software, but in the design process, you can't really rely on it to the exclusion of hands-on design. You may miss some simple alternative design or a small modification to the existing one that you can see in front of you when you have the actual components in your hands. When you can physically move a mechanism by hand and study its range of movement you may find that it becomes necessary to alter something to enable it to comply with your design. You may start the design on paper or in paint on the computer but at some stage it is better if you make the mechanism and see it in action.

Having said that, if I had the expertise and a sufficiently powerful computer to use a simulation programs, I'm sure I might decide to test out a particular design and see if it worked. But I don't so I must build it to see if it works and of course if I found that it did work in simulation then I'd have to build it then anyway. But I would still prefer to build it and study it in action.

One of the things that testing an actual physical mechanism shows is what I call 'tight spots' where at some point in its range of movement, usually at an extremity, the mechanism stiffens and becomes bound. This usually requires some loosening but that can have a negative effect in the part of the range where it isn't tight This looseness can cause lateral sway which may cause overlapping parts of the mechanism to interfere with the full range of movement, but in my experience this can be reduced to an acceptable level with the inclusion of spring washers or other springs. This kind of problem will not show up in simulations and yet it is quite likely to occur.

I suspect that it was this kind of use Bessler was referring to when he implied that he might use springs but not in the way people might think.

These kinds of problems and solutions do not show up in simulation software and for that reason I think it is better to make the parts from the beginning.

JC

Sjack Abeling's wheel

Sjack Abeling's wheel which has been so much discussed on various energy forums is a bit of a mystery to me. I have so many questions which seem to me to undermine his claims to have built a successful gravity wheel. The most trivial-seeming and yet pertinant one for me is why show a video of a non-working wheel (i.e. one with the weights removed) and why now, seemingly some long time after he made it? His patent is apparently fully under way and his
intellectual property rights secured so either show us the working version or, if he has been advised against it by his backers, why show us anything at all?

He claims that his machine works in a certain way, using descriptions so accurately matched to Bessler's own descriptions that one is immediately suspicious of them. I have considerable information about how Bessler's machine worked and I can state with some authority that Abeling's wheel bears little or no similarity to Bessler's.

The concept which he appears to be showing in his much-discussed diagram has no connection whatsoever with Bessler's. But having expressed my doubts I have to consider the possibility that he has managed to create a gravity wheel and one which might include certain similarities to the concept which lies behind Bessler's and I await developments with interest.

My own work to replicate Bessler's wheel continues and I am confident that a working version will be made within a few weeks if not sooner. If I fail I believe it will be due to my own clumsy engineering skills and at that point I will pass the job onto my American friends.

JC

Climate Change

With climate change on the political agenda the search is officially on for ways of reducing carbon emissions at the same time as finding new, clean sources of energy. There are several initiatives desirous of finding that new energy source but the one which I have been advocating for several years is still being ignored by the vast majority, and that is gravitational energy. Specifically, I refer to Bessler's wheel, of course.

My problem lies, not so much in getting people to consider the potential benefits of such a machine, but to consider whether it is even possible. We have been taught so convincingly that gravity wheels are impossible that no one is prepared to give the possibility a second glance, this, despite the convincing evidence that some have already been built.

My question is this - what more can I do, other than build the wheel? That is something I'm working on, but in the mean time ... if people would view my video it might help. I guess watching a video takes less effort than reading text. If you are reading this blog and wish to help please spread the word about the video. You can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

JC

Youtube video

I have posted a very short version of my video on youtube and have reluctantly removed my likeness from it. I sincerely hope that my legions of female fans (wife, two daughter and two grandaughters) won't be too dismayed at this almost sacriligious cut, but I have to think of the effect my walking, talking image might have on others of a more delicate disposition - and it was too long and boring. Even my speaking voice has been known to have an unusually soporiphic effect on those who are not prepared before hand, so be warned, kind viewer, take note of the message but not the messenger.

You can see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

JC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWVKtpuzn0

Wheel, Video and paper update

The video I planned to put on youtube was finished and posted but then I withdrew it because it was way too long. I'm shortening it to the recommended maximum of four minutes, which is very difficult to do. How can I cram thirty years research into a four minute video? Well I have to do that or no-one will ever watch it - maybe they won't anyway - we'll see.

The prototype is almost finished. I'm using the same old backplate as I have for the last couple of years. This is the disc I use to fix everything on to. It has its own support frame and is balanced and spins easily. It's so full of holes it's getting quite fragile, but it's made of MDF (medium density fibreboard) which is useful as it's easy to drill and I have found it the most practical medium for the purpose. If this model works I'll produce a nicer looking version to display to the public. I have kept all the old backplates from several years ago, out of sentiment, but really they only tell of the number of failed attempts I have made and don't give away any clues as to the various designs I've tested over the years.

The mechanisms are finished and most of them are attached to the backplate so it won't be long before I'll know if this is a runner. There is one modification I reserve to test if this model doesn't work, and it is based on an ambiguous statement by Bessler, which can be read in three or four different ways. As far as I know I'm the only person who is aware that this comment by Bessler can be read in this particular way, although there is plenty of discussion about the ambiguity of it. This is because I'm aware of something I discovered from Bessler's codes and which I haven't discussed with anyone to date. My indecision about which method to use stems from my knowledge of the various possible interpretations of Bessler's ambiguous remark and in my opinion his comment is connected with this encoded information, but it might not be, in which case the second version I have reserved will be tested.

I picked this particular understanding of the comment in question because it seemed to me that to read it in the obvious way did not make any difference to the way the mechanisms worked, although without seeing the actual mechanisms working it isn't clear that this is so.

Sorry if that has totally confused you!

The paper I have written and intend to post to my friend the American scientist for peer review will be sent if these two models fail; and the book will be published as soon after as I can manage.

Finally thank you to Lucius Anneus for reminding about the purpose of this blog.

JC