Look Before You Leap!

It's been a while since I mentioned this subject and I wonder how, or if, people's thoughts have changed.  I know from discussions I have had, that everyone taking part in this field of research, i.e. trying to discover how Bessler made his wheel work and then produce one too, has considered what they would do in the event of success.  What would you do if you succeeded?

There are a number of options and mine are simple but there are still snags and pitfalls along the way for the unwary. I think most people are aware that I wouldn't patent the device, for several reasons that I have discussed elsewhere, and don't wish to rehash here again.  I have the option of publishing my book, and there are other potential income sources so for me the way is clear, and yet there are still things to plan for in the event of success.

Picture the scene - you have just finished the first successful continuously spinning gravity driven wheel for 300 years! Do you rush out and broadcast the news?  (I'm assuming there are no thoughts of patents here.)
Publishing your success should be reserved for later because you don't know who might be planning to copy your device or steal it.  Is that paranoia or just common sense?  There are many desperate people who would love to own your invention so the first thing you should do is photograph it, video it, describe it in writing with drawings - and above all dismantle it, hide it and then arrange to have those backups legally registered with the appropriate persons or systems as applicable. This, so that you have a legal document setting the date of register in stone and thus proving your priority if necessary.  This registering can be achieved without revealing the contents of the package - and it costs a minuscule fraction of the patenting process in both time and money.

Some may say that it doesn't matter how much patenting will cost, as all costs will be repaid a thousand-fold eventually, but I say it does matter and the whole patenting process is fraught with expense, and delay and questions and also the distinct possibility of it being  grabbed by the government and taken out of your hands altogether.

So when do you tell the world about your discovery?  Not until you are ready.  I don't have all the answers but restraining your enthusiasm to spill the beans before you have everything settled, and are confident that you will get some remuneration for all your work seems like a sensible precaution.  If you know of someone who is a creditable scientist, teacher or some other respected member of the community and whom you trust to vet the written description and video evidence before you submit it to the world, that could be useful backup too..  Of course it might be difficult to find someone who will not object to subsequent press harassment.

Many of us sometimes believe we are almost there and have the complete design in our heads and we succumb to the temptation to publicise our conviction that we have the solution ( been there. done that!) but advertising that the wheel is almost complete is like saying that someone is almost pregnant; it is either complete and it works or it doesn't.

Suppose that you broadcast your good news immediately you have success, hold a press conference and tell the world; what do you think will happen?  They will want pictures of the device; videos; detailed descriptions of how it works.  Without these they will simply bring in 'expert's to discuss your ideas and shoot them down and unless you are prepared to reveal everything about the wheel it would be best to remain silent until you are ready.

One more thing - I personally would be unwilling to expose my new baby in its present state - rough and ready is the best I could say of it.  I would make a new version of it in a much more presentable image with nice colours and shiny metal; the original can be kept back for future nostalgic consideration..

Anyone who writes regularly on the besslerwheel forum or has a blog, must continue to post their thoughts , even if they have found the solution, otherwise they might be suspected of hiding the fact that they were just biding their time before revealing their success!  I haven't found it yet - honestly!

Ah well - its good to dream!!  Good luck.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Gravity loophole and eggs on faces!

Having witnessed a plethora of advice on the Besslerwheel forum from the advocates of the opinion that the likelihood of gravity turning out to be the main driving force for Bessler's wheel is about as likely as the survival of a fart in a cyclone, I can only say that I look forward with unbounded enthusiasm to the day when we can look at all the naysayers, who regard us as naive at best, and say..."We told you so, but you wouldn't listen!"

Somebody described us as "naive" and yet the word  naive describes people who tend to believe in whatever they are told, without questioning whether it is right or wrong. Perhaps the word should be applied to those sceptics instead. How else can you describe their complacency in stating in the strongest possible terms that Bessler's wheel will never be driven by gravity alone?  They state with unparalleled self-satisfaction that such machines are impossible and Bessler was either a fraud or used some additional force to achieve the same result.

Why are the words that Bessler used taken as lies or misleading statement at best?  He states in no uncertain terms that the weights are in themselves, the source of the energy, saying " these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.  To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and co- ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing.  This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation. "

The above statement is unequivocal and should be taken seriously instead of examined for double or hidden meaning .... or downright lies.

So the only conclusion is that there must be loophole within the accepted laws governing gravity which would allow devices such as a gravity-wheel to work as Bessler described - and there is.  It isn't even a loophole - just an overlooked facet of the subject.  I know it and I can prove it, so if I'm right then all you know-it-all sceptics are about to have egg on your faces.

Loophole;  an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. wikipedia

JC

Out of ideas? Cross bars and parametric oscillation?

It may have been noticed that the number and frequency of blogs has sharply diminished of late, and the reasons are several.  Subjects relating to Bessler are getting harder to discuss as the finishing line looms closer.  Writing about the subject without giving away anything about my research limits what comments I can make and it is clear that the Besslerwheel forum is suffering from the same affliction; people are running out of ideas to discuss.  I am also keenly aware that every time I make a statement such as I believe that  I am on the final stretch towards the finish, I sound like every other would-be winner of this race to exhibit the first gravity wheel in 300 years.

I often read comments on the besslerwheel forum which seek to affirm certain suppositions as facts and which I at least know are incorrect.  My problem is that when I know for certain that they are wrong I am unable to make any comment to correct this impression if it relates to anything which might give away the principle which I have discovered lies at the heart of the Bessler wheel.

How do I know with such certainty that they are wrong?  I can best answer this with an example.  It has often been stated with considerable self-assurance that we will never know if the wheel, when the solution is eventually found, will be the same configuration as Bessler's.  I can state with equal certainty that we will know, because I have already found enough evidence to convince everyone that the design lies there for all to see if only they can put the correct clues together.  Remember Bessler's word found written across the first page of Bessler's Maschinen Tractate; 

N.B. 1st May, 1733.  Due to the arrest, I burned or hid all the woodcuts that prove the possibility.  However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them'. "

These words are the important ones, as I have said before - taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them.

I have found the correct illustrations and have put certain parts of them together to obtain a movement or action that demonstrates the principle.  I found the principle which, by the way, involves parametric oscillation as suggested by Scott many years ago on the forum - and also, independently, by professor Hal Puthoff in private correspondence with me several years ago - from other clues in Bessler's drawings, but I have to say that I discovered the Bessler-Collins principle myself first and then found it confirmed in a drawing by Bessler.

You may say, "where is the wheel then?" which is a fair question and I can only tell you that it is being worked on.  Knowing the principle alone is not sufficient and the delay in finishing it lies in deciding how to arrange just one cross bar or cross or crossing to make the principle work.

Speaking of cross bars,  Creuz, the word used by Bessler, and translated as cross bar, has a multitude of meanings and could refer to clubs, as in playing cards, or sharps as in music, or traverse, or of course the letter X - or it might just refer to the shape of a cross in the design of his mechanisms, but in the end it seems to indicate how many mechanisms he employed.  One was scarcely sufficient to turn the wheel but more worked better.

I shall continue to write blogs but they need more care in presenting my thoughts, given that the solution would be so easy to give away, and - selfishly, I admit - I would like to be the one who succeeds with my own version of Bessler's wheel.  As I've promised before, the work I've done will be published if I can't succeed soon so until then I shall keep reconfiguring the mechanism until it does what I want - or give up!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Build Update and drilled holes which wander awry!

I'm totally immersed in this project and finding it difficult to take time to write this blog, so apologies if you miss my pearls of wisdom, but I have to finally find a way to finish it - the wheel that is, not the blog!  I shall reappear periodically with another trite piece of literary garbage in a vain attempt to stoke some interest afresh, in the life and legend of Bessler's wheel and my/our attempts to solve the ingenious puzzle he bequeathed to later generations - how to cause a wheel to spin continuously requiring nothing but the force of gravity inplace of fuel.

My wood disc, which I use as a kind of platform for attaching the various bits of mechanism that I devise, has been replaced recently because the old one was in danger of becoming a large wooden circle with nothing inside the rim; this being due to my need to drill numerous holes in incalculabler numbers all over the face of the disc, each of which was designed to hold one of the supporting pivots for the forest of levers bearing weights, which formed the mechanisms, but which was found to be in the wrong place according to the resulting state of frozen immobility.

So I begin work anew using my pristine MDF disc, and have carefully measured the dimensions of the levers and drawn their correct positions on the face of the disc and have begun again to drill those accursed holes which are sometimes driven by some iniquitous urge to move slightly off position, thus preventing the success I so desperately seek.

Just kidding guys!  I have drawn in the angles the levers are intended to follow, the weights are ready and attached to the levers.  I'm making this latest version with the intention of trying it with just one mechanism - or one cross-bar as Bessler put it.  I'm not convinced that it will work with only one and Bessler said in Apologia, "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several leverss, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster.."  but it should work sufficiently to prove the principle.

It's so frustrating to know the principle behind the wheel and it's so easy to understand that anyone who learns about it will know with the same certainty as I do that it is the key to success.  I was thinking of calling it the "Bessler-Collins principle of ..." - sorry guys but that would give it away! 

Somebody pointed out that the heading of the blog 13th September, Never, Ever, Give Up.originated from a fragment of a Churchill speech which went like this:-

“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force, never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Who might the enemy be?  Why, the world of sceptics out there who deride our every word.

Anyway back to work and I hope I can give you some good news soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Levers, Weights and Perpetual Motion Wheels

When I began my research into Bessler's wheel, 50 odd years ago (!), I used paper, pencil, ruler compasses and a protractor, not much has changed; I still prefer doing the initial design on paper before recording it on my computer.

My first thoughts were to try to design a way of making the weights keep further from the centre of rotation, or try to get more of them on one side than the other -  and that is pretty well the same thing today - that the vast majority of people try to achieve.

But, as I progressed by trial and error - mainly error - one of the mistakes I made many years ago involved the different effects experienced by a lever with a weight on one end, a pendulum if you like, when attached to a wheel.  I'm sure that most people are aware of this simple phenomenon, but as I still get designs emailed to me which ignore this effect, I thought it useful to describe it here.

A pendulum whether swinging or stationary, applies its weight to the pivot.  In other words, gravity pulls down on the weight and the pull is experienced at the pivot. For the sake of this argument I ignore other pulls experienced by the pendulum when swinging.  One of the typical features of perpetual motion designs includes the use of these weighted levers. 

Consider this; a lever with a weight on one end is attached to a pivot mounted at some place on the wheel, say half way between the centre and the rim.  When the wheel is stationary the pendulum hangs straight down, and its weight is experienced at the pivot.  If the wheel is slowly rotated, the lever remains hanging from the pivot while it counter-rotates relative to the wheel, and the weight of the pendulum is still born by the pivot and felt at that point.

If a stop is placed in the path of the counter-rotating pendulum, and this will inevitably be part of the design, then the pendulum is prevented from further motion relative to the wheel; the pull of weight is no longer experienced at the pivot but is then moved to the position on the wheel occupied by the weight. 

 This means that the pull from the weight has moved across the face of the wheel at the the instant that the pendulum comes up against the stop.

Should the wheel be rotated by hand until the pendulum is able to fall again, its weight during the fall, is negligible because it is in free fall and the pivot does not bear the weight and neither does the wheel, so the wheel has lost that portion of its total weight - until, that is, the weight hangs vertically again from its pivot.

So the position in which the weight is supported, or experienced, and where it affects the wheel, moves between the pivot itself and the weight where ever it happens to be relative to the wheel and, for a brief moment, no weight at all, as it falls.

There are several problems which arise when the design calls for the pendulum to do something which doesn't take into account these features and I'd like to have run through some, but time, space and falling reader attention combine to persuade me otherwise.

Of course this all changes if the falling pendulum is designed to do work as it falls - and that's a whole new can of worms!

I should perhaps have included drawings to illustrate this, but the clock is always against me.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's Gera Wheel was moved by modest mechanisms of seemingly simple appearance.

Going by the designs I receive by email, from time to time, I notice that the majority of people have devised fairly complex designs in their efforts to solve Bessler's wheel.  Not complex in the way a petrol engine looks when you see an exploded diagram of one, but more complex than it might need to be.  I think the following points are worth bearing in mind when attempting to solve this conundrum.

Bessler was worried that people would think that the wheel wasn't worth the asking price once they saw how it worked and how simple it was.  He was also concerned that a glimpse of the workings or a careless word uttered, might give away the secret, and Karl, the Landgrave, described the wheel as being extremely simple

The Gera wheel, his first, measured 4.6 feet in diameter and only 4 inches in thickness.  The framework which supported the weights and the levers, or whatever else was contained within the wheel, must have been formed to supply a certain rigidity in order not to deform or break down when rotating.  We have no details on the size of the axle but assuming that it was of a sufficient size to keep the wheel stable and relative to the next thee wheel which were correspondingly larger, I think it must have been about 4 inches thick.

These figures suggest an internal thickness of three to three and a half inches maximum, which does not leave much room for the weights.  I'm sure they weren't as heavy as the ones Christian Wolff described as being about 4 pounds in weight, and they would have to have some room to accomodate an lateral movement. The motion of the wheel was described as being accompanied by scratching and scraping sounds, and this suggests that the levers were rubbing against each other as they moved, or the weights were scraping the internal walls of the wheel.

Finally I remain fairly certain that there were five mechanisms within the wheel for reasons additional to the ones I've described elsewhere and this helps to confirm the basic argument I'm putting forward here, that the solution will be found to be extremely simple and not of a complex design - and the mechanisms took up very little room.  The theory I've been working on for the last eighteen months or so, seems to suggest that although it looks simple there are at least two principles to bear in mind and I've recently found that I can distill the amount of mechanism down to fewer component parts and replicate the action I achieved with a more complex design.  This will, I hope, enable me to fit five of them within the wheel.

.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Never, Ever, Give Up.

I wonder if the apparent dirth of new ideas in this field of research is real or just a symptom of my own jaded perspective.  With regard to a solution to the age old problem of perpetual motion and more specifically, Bessler's wheel, I feel as though I have seen, read about or thought of everything I that anyone comes up with these days.  I still receive emails informing me of the auhor's excitement at the prospect of solving the puzzle of Bessler's wheel and they always wish to share their ideas with me.  I always used to be pleased to see what they came up with but long years of seeing the same ideas recycled over and over, has forced me to politely, I hope, and with appropriate gratitude, turn down the offer to share their new found solutions.  I always leave them with encourgemnt and suggestons as to who else they might approach with me success.

Johann Bessler, also known by his pseudonym, ORFFYREUS, did certainly invent a machine which turned continuously for the best part of two months, lift heavy weights and drive an archimedes screw for pumping water.  It survived numerous official and unofficial examinations during more than ten years, without even the slightest evidence of fraud being found, despite the most determined scrutiny.  I believe, as do many others, that the machine made use of the force of gravity to shift weights in a paricular configuration which created a contnual imbalance in the wheel which caused it to trun continuously.

I am constantly surprised therefore to find that instead of an increasing interest in this extraordinary invention, there appears to be a fading fascination with it.  Yet, in the light of the many problems concerning energy, I am amazed that no single person or department within any kind of research or educational institute has shown the slightest curiosity about why it worked or if fraud, how Johann Bessler did it.

My frequent conversations with strangers usually produces outright rejection of the very idea that such a machine might be feasable, but on hearing the evidence they appear to become more open-minded - at least while in my presence.  I suspect that later conversations they might have with others would proabably be met with the same scornful hilarity as is regularly shown to me, thus I do not blame them if their open-minds slam shut!

So all I can do until I, or some other poor obsessed soul, produces a working wheel is encourage you who happen by chance upon these words, to read my book about Bessler.  I called it, 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?'  I included the 'question mark' to suggest that although I appeared to be claiming that the problem had been solved, I was asking the question, 'was it solved once?'

It details all the evidence I found during some thirty years of research.  I also produced, in an effort to provide more information, three of Bessler's self-published book, each with its own English translation.  You can find links to each book to the right. of thios page.

Good luck and don't give up - ever!

JC


10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.