Proof of principle device almost finished

It has been suggested that as I am nearing completion of the reconstruction of Bessler's wheel that I should write something every day, detailing my progress, however I think I would bore my readers to death with the minutiae of my daily construction efforts. Having said that perhaps it might help some of you to understand why it is taking so long to finish what seems, on the face of it, a relatively simple thing to complete, if I describe my latest problems which have led to this delay.

I have made a new set of mechanisms in new material and when moved by hand they perform as designed, but it's still difficult to get the actions perfect and I have to keep altering the way things are arranged, not because the design doesn't work, but to get the various pieces to work together without either missing each other entirely, or getting entangled and locking together. It is surprisingly difficult to transfer a design which is both in one's mind and on paper into a practical reality. Everything works as it should do when moved by hand, but then you find that under its own steam, so-to-speak, or rather gravity, the levers are either too close and bump into each other, or too far apart so that an engagement designed to occur, misses! There is some flexibility in the levers giving rise to too much lateral movement. But if I tighten them down to limit the lateral motion, they become stiff and don't move easily. I may have to add some kind of lateral bracing to support them unless I can produce a proof of principle (POP) wheel without further delay.

I have found that by altering the order of the pieces I have eventually achieved the best arrangement. The order can be changed throughout the depth of the mechanism, by that I mean, not the plan view, but the sideways elevation. It doesn't alter the way the mechanism works but it does improve and free-up the action.

I had fitted five mechanisms to the backplate but as they were unable to move properly and freely, due to entanglement, I have rearranged them and three are now fitted and working as designed. The remaining two will be done as soon as I can get into the workshop again. On some days I only get ten or fifteen minutes in my workshop and sometimes none at all.

I am doing this on a shoestring, as I always have done, just to make a POP machine, but I have seen estimates of money spent on prototypes, posted on various forums, and I am surprised at how much people spend, because I have spent no more than about £100 (about $160) in the last ten or maybe even fifteen years of modelmaking! I have to admit that some of the models shown are amazingly well engineered, rugged-looking and most impressive, but I suspect I could have built half a dozen rough and ready models in the time it takes to build just one high quality one. In the end we only require a working model to prove the principle, however roughly constructed. Once that has been achieved then a high quality product based on the original design can be built.

And another thing; people often describe the high quality bearings they use to reduce friction but I worry little about friction, as long as there is enough energy to turn the wheel continuously against any friction that is all that is needed. My axle is a threaded rod and it rests in a couple of plastic copper plumbing pipe wall supports screwed to two upright pieces of wood. Cost was less than a pound for a pack of five.

JC

A hiccup, but I'm back on track

I have just realised it has been over a week since my last post, but the reason for the lack of communication is down to my problems with over-used, cannibalised material in my prototype. No progress means I had nothing to report.

It was held up for a while because I have been using parts from previous constructions and the result was a mess with some parts catching on others and locking the whole structure. But not only do I now have a new back plate but I bit the bullet and bought new material for the various parts.

The mechanism looks simpler now without the fabricted joins, bent and restraightened levers and the numerous drilled holes from previous incarnations of Bessler's wheel, and I aim to finish it as soon as possible.

In my opinion, knowing why it works, I think that Karl might not have fully understood the concept behind it and his comment about it being simple was the result of not having had it fully explained to him. I can imagine Bessler keeping his explanation brief in order to allow the misapprehension of the concept thus avoiding an explanation of the finer points of the device. The design is more sophisticated than might be apparent to an observer and an assumption made about its method of converting the force of gravity to rotary motion, innaccurate. Having said that, it is not a complicated idea and once explained, easily understood.

I hope to have it finished within a week. Then what? That is the multi-million dollar question. I have some ideas but nothing is set in stone.

JC

The solution is under your nose.

It was mentioned here very recently that we had been searching for some 300 years for a solution to Bessler's wheel and had found nothing but fraud upon fraud - and of course endless failure . We continue to search for that elusive design which will provide a continuous sequence of accelerating turns of the wheel, without success. One must conclude that the basic design concept we are using to achieve our aim must be wrong.

Throughout the history of the search for perpetual motion, (for gravity-wheels) the aim has been to get weights to overbalance a wheel by getting them to move, under the force of gravity, into a position from where they can apply their overbalancing effect. And yet we know, because physics tells us so, that such configurations cannot work. Gravity can react to an overbalanced configuration and make the wheel turn, but it cannot make the weight also return to its starting point. So as long as we continue to design wheels which rely on the same old concept we shall continue to fail.

It is apparent from posts by some members of http://www.besslerwheel.com/ that they believe that a separate additional force is required to engineer the movement of the weights into their overbalancing position. Such forces as CF and CP, magnetism, electrostatics and changes in ambient temperature have all been suggested. No-one to my knowledge has come up with a working hypothesis.

It seems to me that what we are all searching for exists but we are not looking in the right place - or rather we are looking but not seeing. Bessler said he found the answer where everyone else had looked. In other words the answer is right there under our noses.

JC

Tilting at windmills

According to my local paper, The UK government has assigned a large tract of open countryside, to the south of where I live in England, to be used for developing several large windfarms. Naturally the protesters are out in force, claiming that these vast machines will desecrate some of the most beautiful countryside we have, spoiling the view and scaring the wild life.

Some people argue that the sight of these majestic windmills is beautiful and almost other-worldly and well might that be, if there was just one, but a phalanx of them, marching across to the horizon is another matter altogether.

From my own perspective, what I wonder, will become of them once the solution to Bessler's wheel has been found? It seems crazy to be building these behemoths ( I always wanted an excuse to use that word!) when a much better alternative is so close. It isn't until the prospect of having one of these things in your own backyard that the implications of such devices hits you. I can imagine vast acreages of these monstrous windmills standing motionless for years and years, no longer required and too expensive to take down and recycle. I fear that once they're here they'll be here for a long time.

I have been away with my family for the last few days and have been somewhat frustrated to be enjoying the sunshine, food and wine in Spain when I could have been working to finish my Bessler wheel reconstruction - is that stupid or what? Any way, back to work today and I must admit that a few days away has crystallised my thinking and I am clear in my mind about what to do if and when it works. Somehow I always have to include that little word 'if'. It's the same as touching wood for luck except that if I didn't include it I would think I was tempting fate - pride before a fall?

JC

A secured record, just in case...

While discussing certain matters with a friend, the other day, he raised a point of concern. He said that if I was so certain that I understood the basics of why Bessler's wheel worked and why it did not challenge the laws of physics, then I should get it written down and placed in some secure place so that, should something happen to me, it could be found, opened and shared. Otherwise it might be lost and would have to await someone else's discovery, which could be next week, next year or never.

I'm not one to worry about what might happen to me and I don't fear MIBs or any of their clones, but it did make sense to make sure my own research didn't get buried, just in case I wasn't looking while crossing the road or had my attention distracted from driving... So what was I to do?

The first thing I did was to write down everything about the basic principles that underlie a successful working Bessler wheel. It's not that complicated and it is, as Bessler said, to be found where everyone else has looked. The second thing is to encrypt it so that it can only be opened either when I have disappeared off the face of the planet or when I am ready to open it myself. PGP is the obvious choice and the only other thing is to find somewhere to post it. I could post it here and might well do so. Another idea is to copy it on to a CD and post copies to various people around the world and at the appropriate moment post the pass word key here there and everywhere. A posting on to another web site forum is a possibility but not without the agreement of the site owner.

Readers of this post may be thinking I am deluding myself if I really think I know the secret of Bessler's wheel, but the truth is that once you know it, it is obvious and leaves no room for doubt. The only problem left once you know the principle behind it, is to design a mechanism which incorporates the principle - and that is slightly more complicated!

I was hoping to finish my own proof-of-principle model before jetting off to Spain again, but alas the hours have overtaken me again so it will have to await my return in a few days. I am leaving to celebrate my older daughter's 40th birthday (she won't thank me for broadcasting that!) in the sunshine of the Costa Blanca.

NB in response to anonymous's comment, yes sorry. I should have said that steps have been taken to ensure that a public key is available. And yes you're absolutely right, I am trying to prove I came up with something first, in case I don't get to finish my own project before I go. So there are two things; one is to prove my priority and two is to ensure it is saved and not lost.

JC

A simple mechanism? I don't think so.

I have been working on my attempted reconstruction of Bessler's wheel for several weeks, on and off, and I'm finding that the mechanism is more complex than Karls' comment about the wheel being so simple a carpenter's boy could make one, might seem to imply. I think seeing a mechanism operating as a finished item is understandable and you can copy it easily enough so you could say it was simple - but making it up as you go along with only the barest outline of how it works, coupled with an understanding of the basic principe is much harder.

Firstly I found that making and fitting the mechanisms was not too difficult. Secondly, during this process I checked and rechecked their range of movement to make sure they operated as I intended - and they did. But (you knew there was going to be a 'but'!) once you raise the wheel to the vertical position in which it will run and allow the mechanisms to take up their natural position under the influence of gravity, it's then you discover you haven't got it quite right!

The mechanism has to do a certain thing at a certain time and getting that right is the hard part - I understand why Bessler complained about his own difficulty in setting the mechanisms correctly in his two-directional wheel but that was more complex than the single-direction ones. It tells me that he was a much more highly skilled engineer than I am.

Part of the problem lies in the way the various parts of the mechanism interact with each other. In my case I have a two foot diameter backplate on which to attach the mechanisms, but they take up approximately two inches of depth - I mean that they stand out from the backplate about two inches. I have redesigned them or rather rearranged them so that one lever is now operating under another one instead of over it and this has meant that I have had to increase the height (depth) above the backplate of the weight. This does seem to have improved the action of the mechanism so I continue.

I know this is difficult to comprehend without a drawing but I think you get the picture - it's proving difficult but not impossible to complete this project and definitely taking longer than I thought it would.

One point occurred to me; Karl's reference to a carpenter's boy suggests that the mechanism was made entirely of wood other than the weights? So the levers etc would be wooden rods I presume. I always imagined that it would have steel or rather iron levers.

PS Sorry, I forgot to say why it was giving me problems. In the first place the weights were taking longer to react to their changed position than I had anticipated so they did not create the reaction soon enough. That is not hard to fix, but the other problem was that the weights were catching one of the levers as I crossed its path and that required a change of the arrangement of the mechanism as I described above. This is not a situation where the design does not work because it is wrong but because the design does not allow clean uninterrupted range of movement .

JC

Priorities, patents and publishing

The realisation hit me yesterday that I had got my priorities all wrong. How could I be sitting on the biggest discovery of my life and wasting time on other persuits, some related to Bessler's wheel and others not? Time passes at an alarming rate and it seems scarcely credible to me that I have understood the basic principle that lies behind Bessler's wheel for over a year and yet I have not yet completed a wheel that actually runs incorporating this principle.

The time has not been entirely wasted as new insights have come to me through building what I thought was what Bessler intended, however time is now the most important factor to me and I am going ahead with finishing what I started. All five mechanisms are finished and three are attached to the backplate but I ruined two of them by drilling holes in the wrong place and I am having to rebuild them because the cannibalisation of old parts which I have habitually used over the years has made some of the material I use - unusable!

Assuming that the wheel works, what then? Advice from a good and knowledgeable friend has made me rethink my decision not to patent. His argument being that I can still give the design away if I wish but at least I would retain some potential for future financial independence. That seems like sound advice but also raises its own concerns. Suppose this model works - do I announce it? Or do I say nothing and get the patent applied for? If I say nothing I will be chased by those many others also researching this subject and working on their own projects who are expecting me to say whether this model worked or did not.

If I announce it and also apply for the patent will I withstand the pressure to say nothing further until the patent process has made it safe for me to share what I know? Actually I think I have the answer now but I need to think carefully about it.

But then again, just like a hundred times before, maybe I'm fooling myself and it won't work - again!

In order to concentrate on the project I have removed much of the information I had published about the so-called code. The reaction to the publication of my speculations about Bessler's encoded information disappointed me and I realised that I have been too close to it to see it objectively. I may publish it again at a later date but I think it is best left safely filed away until I can reassess what I have written in the light of another day.

JC